Preamble

The House—after the Adjournment on 30th March, 1961, for the Easter Recess—met at half-past Two o'clock.

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

HOLY TRINITY BROMPTON BILL

Read the Third time and passed.

MANCHESTER CORPORATION BILL (By Order)

Read a Second time and committed.

TRUNK PIPELINES BILL (By Order)

Second Reading deferred till Monday next at Seven o'clock.

Oral Answers to Questions — MALTA

Crimes and Misdemeanours

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will state the number and nature of the crimes and misdemeanours, respectively, giving sexes and ages, which have been committed in Malta during each of the last ten years, distinguishing those which were from those which were not of a political character.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Iain Macleod): This information is contained in Section 17 of the Statistical Abstract of the Maltese Islands, copies of which have been placed in the Library. The available statistics do not distinguish age or sex and there is no special category of prosecutions of a political character.

Mr. Hughes: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that that is a very generalised type of reply? Would he agree that most of the crimes committed in Malta arise not from turpitude but from the discontents of a people desiring democratic self-government, and will he take steps to remove those discontents so that such offences will be diminished or, perhaps, abolished altogether?

Mr. Macleod: I do not think that I would agree with that analysis. We have, of course, put forward our proposals for the future constitutional provision, but if the hon. and learned Member will study the table I think he will see that it is not possible to create a special category of political offences and that the statistics given are as full as possible.

Malta Tourist Board

Mr. Teeling: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies when, and for how long, Mr. Barker Benfield was appointed Chairman of the Malta Tourist Board; how much money was allocated for the Board's expenditure over five years and how much of this was spent in the first two years; whether Mr. Barker Benfield is now in


Malta; and what proposals Her Majesty's Government now have in view of the annual reports of the Director of Audit for 1958–59 and 1959–60.

Mr. Iain Macleod: Mr. Barker Benfield was appointed Chairman of the Malta Government Tourist Board by the Malta Government in September, 1958, on a one-year contract. This was extended by mutual agreement for a further year in September, 1959. Mr. Barker Benfield resigned his appointment in June, 1960, and has not been employed in Malta since then.
I have asked the Governor for the information asked for in the remainder of the question, and will write to my hon. Friend when I have received it.

Mr. Teeling: Can my right hon. Friend tell us anything about this gentleman, in view of the fact that he was the only non-Maltese appointed to the Tourist Board and, presumably, he was appointed by the Colonial Office?

Mr. Macleod: I do not know very much about the original appointment. I should like to have the Governor's comments on the matters which my hon. Friend raises in his Question before I write to him on it.

Mr. Brockway: If there is to be a likelihood of the tourist industry expanding in Malta, is it possible that the land now under military occupation along that magnificent coast road will be released so that tourist activities can advance?

Mr. Macleod: No. I could not give any undertaking about that. Tourism is of great importance to Malta and has been going ahead fast in recent years.

Oral Answers to Questions — KENYA

Representative Government

Sir A. Hurd: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what progress has been made in forming a representative Government in Kenya.

Mr. Fenner Brockway: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, if he will make a statement on the Governmental deadlock in Kenya.

Mr. Iain Macleod: The Governor is continuing his endeavours to form a

Government and I would prefer to make no statement at present.

Sir A. Hurd: Will my right hon. Friend emphasise again in this House that we fully support the Governor of Kenya in the line he is taking in trying to recruit from elected members of all races in Kenya a Government that will take responsibility? That is the desperately urgent matter now, and we do not mind very much which African party first shows the political courage to do what is right for Kenya.

Mr. Macleod: I am sure the best answer is that people of all races should come forward together in these circumstances to accept portfolios and form a strong Government. I believe that this could be done.

Mr. Brockway: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that there are very many in this House who profoundly disagree with the point of view expressed by the hon. Gentleman opposite in his supplementary question—[HON. MEMBERS: "Who?"]—nearly the whole of the Opposition—and that we regard it as a tragedy, with this new opportunity in Kenya and with the elections which passed off in a spirit of good will, that there should be the danger that this new hope will be ruined by the obstinacy of the Governor?

Mr. Macleod: It certainly is not the obstinacy of the Governor, and, as he made clear in his broadcast, his thinking is exactly the same as that of Her Majesty's Government, and always has been. Naturally, on a matter of this importance, Her Majesty's Government would be most closely consulted. I do not think that what the hon. Gentleman says is right. On the contrary, I think it would be disastrous if after elections which were, on the whole, so amiably fought this sort of condition were imported into a constitution in which it has no part. It was never a condition of the Lancaster House agreement that anything to do with law and order should be a prerequisite of forming a Government, nor should it be made one now.

Mr. Callaghan: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that pledges given by both African parties to their electorate make the release of Kenyatta one of the conditions prerequisite to forming a Government? If the right


hon. Gentleman proposes to back the Governor in this position, what steps will he take to overcome the resulting deadlock?

Mr. Macleod: I am not convinced that deadlock is yet there. I know that the Hon. Member recognises that this is an extremely difficult position and wants to see a way out if one can be found. I am sure that the way out is for a Government to be formed. Once a Government is formed, that being the first prerequisite the Governor laid down, it may be possible to move into happier days.

Mr. Callaghan: I appreciate what the right hon. Gentleman says, but does not he understand that it is very difficult for politicians to take office if they have previously given pledges which will not be redeemed upon their taking office? In those circumstances, could there not be a concurrent pledge that if these politicians take office and security is not endangered at the end of three months, Kenyatta will be released?

Mr. Macleod: The specific difficulty about a proposal like that is that we cannot be sure what the law and order and security position will be in three, four or six months, or in any given period of time, I do not think that the conditions should be related in any way to a period of time, as the hon. Member suggests.

Land Settlement

Sir A. Hurd: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what plans he has for expediting and expanding the operations of the Land Settlement Board in Kenya and to take up European farms now offered for sale; and what response Kenya Ministers have had to their request to the International Bank to provide funds for the development of the new holdings for African yeomen farmers.

Mr. Iain Macleod: As regards the first part of the Question, I would refer my hon. Friend to my reply to his Question on 9th March. The Kenya Ministers of Finance and Agriculture have just concluded discussions about the provision of funds with the International Bank. There is reason to believe that, subject to approval by the Bank's executive directors to the enactment by the Kenya Legislature of an Ordinance

authorising the proposed borrowing, and to the conclusion of Her Majesty's Government's guarantee of the loan, the Bank will be willing to lend up to £3 million.

Sir A. Hurd: The House will be glad to know that, but are we pressing ahead fast enough with this land settlement scheme, which seems to provide an opportunity for giving more Africans a direct stake in the land as well as preventing many useful European farms from falling vacant, to the detriment of the Kenya economy? Are not we being cheeseparing in money, and are not we short of technical staff to advise the Africans who are going into these farms?

Mr. Macleod: It may be that the second alternative is true, rather than the first. I am anxious to press ahead with these schemes, but the staff is already fully stretched. A considerable amount of money has been and will be found for these schemes, to which I intend to give high and continuing priority.

Sir A. Hurd: Could not we lend some from this country?

Mr. Macleod: We already do that. Quite apart from the money lent by Her Majesty's Government, the Colonial Development Corporation has agreed, in principle, to a loan.

Sir A. Hurd: I am thinking of staff.

Elections (Intimidation)

Mr. Turton: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that at E1 Burgon, during the recent elections in Kenya, an African speaking for the Kenya Coalition was warned that if he continued speaking his wife and two daughters would be slashed on 4th March, 1961, and that on that date his wife and two daughters were discovered slashed and dead; and what steps he is now taking to investigate this and other cases of intimidation that occurred during the recent elections in Kenya.

Mr. Iain Macleod: The Governor reports that on 5th March the police found a Kikuyu girl lying unconscious in the forest area at Molo, and, nearby, the dead body of her mother. They were the daughter and wife of


Zachariah Mbuthia who had spoken in support of the Kenya Coalition at an election meeting at E1 Burgon on 25th February.
The police are looking for two assailants named by the injured daughter. The police are unable to obtain corroboration of the motive for the attack until the alleged assailants have been caught. All reported cases of intimidation are investigated by the police, but in view of the gravity of this deplorable case I will report again to the House when investigations are complete.

Mr. Turton: Will my right hon. Friend himself take a certain amount of responsibility to inquire into these cases of intimidation, and not merely say, as his hon. Friend did, that this matter is purely one for the courts of Kenya? We have a responsibility here.

Mr. Macleod: I think I have made it clear that I take this case very seriously, and I have said that I will report again to the House upon it. On the general question, when I saw the Governor of Kenya a few days ago, as I was passing through, he told me that very few cases of intimidation at the election had been reported, and that in none of them was there sufficient evidence to enable a prosecution to be laid.

Oral Answers to Questions — SIERRA LEONE

Pensions

Mr. Tilney: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what action the Sierra Leone Government have taken as a result of his predecessor's circular dispatch No. 1065/59, of 2nd October, 1959, in connection with pension increases.

Mr. Iain Macleod: The Government of Sierra Leone have taken no decision in this matter as yet.

Mr. Tilney: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the pension increases given to those who in the past have served Sierra Leone are well below those awarded by this House, under the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1959, to the people who have stayed at home in the United Kingdom? Despite the fact that much aid will be given in the future to Sierra Leone—and nobody disputes that

that is a good thing—does not my right hon. Friend agree that what has happened to pensioners in the Sudan and Somaliland is a thoroughly bad advertisement for those whom we want to continue to serve both in the developing countries and in this country?

Mr. Macleod: It is true that these pensions are considerably below those given by the United Kingdom to retired civil servants, but I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that at this stage it is not reasonable to ask the Government of Sierra Leone to take action in advance of their independence, which is coming in two or three weeks' time. I will take into account whatever action is taken in the general review of progress that I have said we will have later in the year.

Oral Answers to Questions — SEYCHELLES

Directors of Education and Medical Services

Mr. Fletcher: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies to what extent the directors of education and medical services in the Seychelles exercise sole responsibility for their Departments; to what extent they are responsible to the administrative secretary for matters other than those arising from the latter's membership of the Legislative and Executive Councils; and if he will define the respective duties of these three officials with regard to the educational and medical services in the Seychelles.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Hugh Fraser): The distribution of duties of officials is a matter for the Governor and I am consulting him. I will write to the hon. Member when I receive a reply, but as mails to and from Seychelles are infrequent this may take a few weeks.

Mr. Fletcher: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it has always been thought desirable that the directors of education and medical services in the Seychelles should not have responsibility for the administration but should be directly responsible to the Government and the Colonial Office?

Mr. Fraser: No, Sir. They must be responsible to the Governor. We believe that is the correct way to run the business.

Oral Answers to Questions — COLONIAL TERRITORIES

Colonial Development Corporation

Mr. G. M. Thomson: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will now make a statement on the financial review of the Colonial Development Corporation.

Mr. Iain Macleod: I expect to be able to make a statement within a fortnight.

Mr. Thomson: Is the Secretary of State aware that it is exactly two years since the Sinclair Committee was appointed by his predecessor to report on this matter? The Sinclair Committee did the real donkey work in three months, but twenty-one months later the Government still find themselves unable to declare their policy. Is not this a disgraceful delay?

Mr. Macleod: I cannot quarrel with the hon. Member's mathematics. I am sorry that I have not been able to make a statement earlier, but all the important matters of principle are now agreed and we are devoting ourselves to tidying up one or two smaller matters. I will make a statement within a short time.

Mr. Thomson: Since the Minister has had such a long time to think about this matter, will he consider, in his statement, dealing with the general policy question of the area of operations of the Colonial Development Corporation?

Mr. Macleod: I could not hold out any hope that there will be any change in long-established Government practice in that regard.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN RHODESIA

Constitution

Mr. Turton: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he intends to communicate to the political parties in Northern Rhodesia amended constitutional proposals for Northern Rhodesia before the date of the referendum on the Southern Rhodesian constitutional proposals.

Mr. Iain Macleod: The first step is for the Governor to proceed with his consultations in Lusaka. His own suggestions illustrating how the outline

plan in the White Paper might be put into effect were set out in a memorandum sent to the political groups on the 16th March; and he is ready to consider any proposals within the framework and general spirit of the White Paper which those groups may put forward. I cannot at present forecast when he may be able to report the outcome of his consultations and make his recommendations, or, consequently, when Her Majesty's Government may be able to reach decisions.

Mr. Turton: Will my right hon. Friend take cognisance of the danger that the Southern Rhodesia referendum, based on the Lennox-Boyd proposals in 1958, may be lost through uncertainty and delay about what is to happen in Northern Rhodesia?

Mr. Macleod: I am aware of that complication. I believe that in a speech a day or two ago Sir Edgar Whitehead indicated that the date of the referendum in Southern Rhodesia might be postponed. Things seem to be going slower in both Northern and Southern Rhodesia than we had hoped. I am conscious of the position.

Mr. Turton: Is my right hon. Friend conscious of the point that it would be a mistake to delay the referendum too long, because the Southern Rhodesian constitution is a welcome advance to multi-racial partnership, and if it is to be destroyed through the abandonment of constitutional development in Northern Rhodesia it will be a great misfortune?

Mr. Macleod: I am sure that there is no desire to delay the referendum in Southern Rhodesia. As Sir Edgar Whitehead's speech made clear, the postponement was purely for an examination of further White Paper matters.

Mr. Callaghan: Will the Minister also take into account the fact that in Northern Rhodesia economic activity is proceeding very slowly indeed, and it is vitally important that we should get a constitutional settlement there?

Mr. Macleod: That is equally true. There is a great deal going on in this field. Tomorrow morning I am starting


talks with the Paramount Chief of Barotseland, who is now in this country. This is part of the pattern that we must get filled in.

Oral Answers to Questions — SARAWAK

Printing Presses

Mr. Oram: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies why the law concerning printing presses in Sarawak has been changed; whether the change is in tended to be permanent or temporary; to what extent defects in the existing law on sedition made necessary the change in respect of printing presses; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. H. Fraser: Some newspapers in Sarawak have recently been publishing material likely to prejudice peace and good order and, in particular, good relations between the different races. The changes in the law to which the hon. Member refers provide for the immediate revocation of a printing press licence. The Governor rightly considers it desirable that it should be possible to take action promptly to check the publication of such inflammatory material. I am in consultation with the Governor about how long the new legislation will remain in force.

Mr. Oram: Is the Minister saying that the situation in Sarawak is so serious as to justify this drastic step of taking the control of the Press out of the courts of law and putting it into the hands of officials? Is not this action likely to discourage rather than encourage faith in the democratic process and the rule of law?

Mr. Fraser: As the hon. Member well knows, we are making considerable advances there, and there will be further advances on the constitutional front in the near future. This action was taken in an effort to stamp out any trouble which might arise owing to these inflammatory articles.

Oral Answers to Questions — HONG KONG

Food Parcels (China)

Mr. Teeling: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps are now being taken by the Hong Kong Government to organise the sending of food

parcels to the famine areas of China; and what were the number of food parcels exported from Hong Kong to the Chinese mainland in 1959, 1960, and the first three months of 1961.

Mr. H. Fraser: The answer to the first part of the Question is none. The answer to the second part is about 870,000, 3,700,000, and 2,600,000.

Mr. Teeling: Is not that clear proof that there is a very serious famine condition on the mainland in China which is very much kept out of the newspapers over here? Most people know about it in Hong Kong and are hoping that there will be some guidance from the Government here to make the Hong Kong Government make it easier for these parcels to be sent into China.

Mr. Fraser: There are arrangements for food packages to go there, and we are in negotiation with the Chinese authorities about the postal service.

Oral Answers to Questions — TANGANYIKA

Constitution

Mr. Brockway: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement on constitutional progress in Tanganyika.

Mr. Iain Macleod: I presided at a successful Constitutional Conference with the Government of Tanganyika in Dares Salaam. It concluded on 29th March with an agreement that full internal self-government should be introduced on 1st May this year and that Tanganyika should be independent on 28th December. I am arranging for the text of the final communiqué to be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT. A fuller report will be circulated as a White Paper.

Mr. Brockway: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that all hon. Members will wish to congratulate him upon this agreement and also to congratulate Mr. Julius Nyerere, the Chief Minister of Tanganyika? Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the statement by Mr. Nyerere that he proposes that Tanganyika, when it becomes independent, should totally disarm, because arms would be useless against the great Powers and would be wrong against other Africans? Will he


give the greatest encouragement to Mr. Nyerere, as an example not only to Africa but to the world?

Mr. Macleod: Although many people were involved, the true credit belongs essentially to two men—Mr. Julius Nyerere and the Governor, Sir Richard Turnbull, who have acted magnificently in these years. On the second point, at meetings which we shall have at Ministerial level in June, we intend to discuss with the new Government of Tanganyika matters relating to defence, finance and other matters.

Mr. Snow: Will the right hon. Gentleman add to his praise the name of the late Sir Donald Cameron, whose great work in the early thirties laid the foundation for what has happened in Tanganyika?

Mr. Macleod: Yes, and also Lord Twining, to whom the Governor of Tanganyika and myself, on the date of the announcement, sent a joint telegram. There are many names, known and unknown, of people who have contributed to the very happy spirit which there is in Tanganyika. I wish it were the same everywhere else.

Mr. Callaghan: And also Arthur Creech Jones.

Following is the communiqué:

TANGANYIKA CONSTITUTIONAL CONFERENCE AGREEMENT ON DATE FOR INDEPENDENCE

The final session of the Tanganyika Constitutional Conference was held this morning (Wednesday, March 29, 1961) in Dares Salaam, with the Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Iain Macleod) presiding. The following official communiqué was issued in Dares Salaam:—
The Tanganyika Constitutional Conference, which began on Monday, March 27, concluded its deliberations this morning with agreement on all points." It proposed that details of the conference proceedings should be incorporated in a White Paper to be published in the United Kingdom and in a Government Paper to be presented to Tanganyika Legislative Council at the next meeting, beginning May 16.
It agreed that at this stage the Governor, Deputy Governor and two official Ministers should no longer be members of the Council of Ministers, which should be renamed the Cabinet; the Conference further decided that the title "Chief Minister" should be changed to that of "Prime Minister" and that the Prime Minister should preside over the Cabinet.
With the introduction of self-government, many of the powers now exercised by the Governor will disappear and, in general, the Governor will act in accordance with the advice

of the Cabinet. The Conference agreed that defence during this period should continue to be a reserved subject and that the Governor, while continuing to be responsible for external affairs, should arrange for Ministers to be increasingly associated with the exercise of responsibilities in these fields with a view to their transfer to ministerial hands on independence.
It was decided that the Legislative Council should be renamed the National Assembly.
The Conference agreed that the Public Service Commission should become executive two months after the introduction of internal self-government and that from that date the post of Deputy Governor, which was largely concerned with civil service matters, would be abolished. A post of Civil Secretary should be created. At the same time, the Public Service Commission would be reconstituted, appointments to it being made by the Governor in his discretion, but after consultation with the Prime Minister. It was also decided to create an executive Police Service Commission. It was agreed that a Judicial Service Commission should be established which would consist of the Chief Justice as Chairman, a serving judge of the High Court of Tanganyika, designated by the Governor and the chairman of the Public Service Commission.
The principle of a compensation scheme for officers designated under the Overseas Service Aid Scheme was endorsed by the Conference. It was agreed that the main features of such a scheme must be decided and published before full internal self-government for Tanganyika is introduced. The Conference also recognised that there were other officers serving on overseas terms for whose interests appropriate provision would have to be made before independence, and took note that discussions about the form of such provision were being separately pursued.
The Government of Tanganyika expressed its desire to continue participation in the common services provided by the East Africa High Commission and is considering ways in which this can be done in a manner compatible with the country's sovereignty. The opportunity was taken to review a number of other matters which would have to be covered in the independence Constitution as well as financial matters and defence forces. It was agreed that further discussions on these topics would take place in London in the second half of June. High Commission matters would be discussed at the same time, if this was acceptable to the other Governments concerned.
The Conference agreed that the date for the introduction of full internal self-government should be May 1, 1961. It further agreed that the date of independence should be December 28, 1961, and that Her Majesty's Government should introduce a resolution at the United Nations proposing the termination of the Trusteeship Agreement at this date.
The Tanganyika Government reaffirmed its intention to apply for membership of the Commonwealth. The Secretary of State welcomed this and said, in reply, that Her Majesty's Government would be very glad to sponsor its application.
The Conference declared their faith that the close and friendly ties between the two countries, which were ensuring smooth and rapid


progress to independence, would be continued in the future between an independent Tanganyika and the United Kingdom.

March 29, 1961.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Teachers

Mr. Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from teachers concerning the delay in negotiating their wage claim; and when he expects to receive the recommendations of the National Joint Council on this matter.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John Maclay): I have received one letter from a teacher complaining of the time taken in the negotiations on the present wage claim. I received a recommendation from the National Joint Council late yesterday.

Mr. Hamilton: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that, although he may have received only one letter, there are great anxieties in the teaching profession about the continued delay in this matter? Will he say when a settlement will be reached and whether there will be any retrospection in it?

Mr. Maclay: No, Sir. I cannot give any details about the future. I have only just received the recommendation.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the prospects for the recruitment of teachers with ordinary arts degrees from the Dundee area.

Mr. Maclay: Of eighteen ordinary arts graduates expected to complete teacher training at the Dundee College in June, twelve come from Dundee, Angus or Perthshire.
Recruitment of graduates throughout the county has risen greatly in recent years, and I hope that there will be an increasing number of graduates at Dundee.

Mr. Thomson: Is the Secretary of State aware that there is a certain amount of concern in Dundee about the proposed closing of the ordinary arts degree course at Queen's College, Dundee, and that there is anxiety lest this may hold up the recruitment of teachers and affect the cultural life of the city? While I

appreciate that this is not his direct responsibility, will he support the representations being made by the Dundee Education Committee that this decision should be postponed for a year in order that the public interest as well as the university interest may be more thoroughly investigated?

Mr. Maclay: The hon. Member clearly realises that I have no say in these matters and cannot properly have a say in them. He will not expect me to do more than comment that doubtless his remarks wall be noticed.

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware of the discontentment of Scottish school teachers resulting from the proposed regulations modifying teachers' superannuation arrangements which empower the Secretary of State to make payments in lieu from the Scottish Teachers' Superannuation Account because this new procedure will inflict hardship on the teachers and involves payments which that account should not be called on to bear; and if he will revise his proposals to meet these objections.

Mr. Maclay: I have received a number of representations on this matter, but the proposed modification will not involve any hardship on teachers. Any deficiency in the Superannuation Account that may arise from payments in lieu, as from any other cause, will fall to be met by the employers.

Mr. Hughes: Does the Secretary of State not realise that that kind of answer does not satisfy the discontents of the teachers and that those discontents are imperilling education in Scotland and depressing it below the level of Britain's competitors in educational and other matters? Will he take stops to resolve these discontents in a way which will satisfy the teachers and restore confidence in the education system in Scotland?

Mr. Maclay: I think the hon. and learned Member can help me in this matter by making certain that Answers such as I have given to his Question are properly understood by the persons concerned.

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals were


made to him at his recent meeting with representatives of Glasgow Corporation as a means of averting the threatened strike of teachers.

Mr. Maclay: The representatives of Glasgow Corporation whom I met yesterday made a number of suggestions for improving the recruitment of teachers and their conditions of service. These were fully discussed and both the representatives of the Corporation and I undertook to examine certain of them further.

Mr. Rankin: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that today's Glasgow Herald tells us that means of relieving the teaching crisis by increasing wages were discussed? Is that correct or not? If it is, will the eight-point programme which was submitted to him form part of those discussions to avert the threatened strike? Could he say how many of those eight points he is prepared to accept?

Mr. Maclay: Of the eight points discussed there were some which the Corporation representatives undertook to examine further and some which I undertook to examine further. It was a very useful discussion, but the implications of those particular questions do not arise on this Question as such.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there is to be a further meeting between himself and Glasgow Corporation before the date of the threatened strike?

Mr. Maclay: This meeting with the Corporation was not directed towards this grave issue, but was a general meet-ting—with that in the background, I agree—on the problem which has arisen of their getting the teachers which they must have.

Mr. Rankin: Is it not the case that one of the points submitted to the right hon. Gentleman was the payment to those retired teachers who return to teaching of their pension plus the salary they are earning? Has he come to any considered conclusion about that point?

Mr. Maclay: On that point I gave the representatives the same information as I gave recently in answer to Questions on the point on the Floor of the House.

Hairmyres Hospital, East Kilbride

Mrs. Hart: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if the Western Regional Hospital Board is yet able to announce a date for the establishment of a general practitioner maternity unit at Hairmyres Hospital, East Kilbride.

Mr. Maclay: The Western Regional Hospital Board is not able at present to say when this unit will be established. Meanwhile, East Kilbride will continue to be served by the maternity units at Hamilton and Bellshill.

Mrs. Hart: Is the Secretary of State aware, and if so will he communicate his awareness to the Western Regional Hospital Board, that the distances which at present have to be travelled to these hospitals are considerable? Is he further aware that there is an utterly absurd situation here, in which we have a new town with a growing population, in which a large number of births are first births and in which mothers are more widely separated from their families and mothers-in-law—people who can normally be of assistance in home confinements—than is usual? Is he aware that here is a matter—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."]—of very great importance to many of my constituents, on which very little expenditure is needed and where the building is available? Will not he press the urgency of this matter on the regional hospital board?

Mr. Maclay: This must primarily be a matter for the regional board. As the hon. Lady may know, the board is about to have discussions about the matter with the district council.

Mrs. Hart: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Hospital In-Patients (Report)

Mrs. Hart: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has read the report of a committee of senior nurses, approved by the Central Health Services Council of England and Wales, on "The Pattern of an In-Patient's Day", and if he will draw its recommendations to the attention of Scottish regional hospital boards.

Mr. Maclay: I have commended this report to the consideration of hospital authorities in Scotland.

Mrs. Hart: While welcoming that reply, may I ask the Secretary of State to pursue the matter with the utmost vigour, since this is a practical hospital reform which could be achieved? Will he ask the regional hospital boards to report to him on what progress they have been able to make?

Mr. Maclay: This is clearly an extremely interesting document. The hospital boards have copies of it, and I am sure that they will pay the closest attention to it.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Civil Servants

Mr. Lipton: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how many civil servants now earn more than £2,000 a year; and (2) how many civil servants now draw salaries at the rate of about £1,750 a year.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Sir Edward Boyle): Exact figures cannot be given without disproportionate work, but the number of civil servants having a salary maximum or fixed salary of between £1,750 and £2,000 per annum is about 11,000, and the number with a maximum or fixed salary of £2,000 or more is about 15,000.

Mr. Lipton: Has the Chancellor had representations from the £2,000-a-year or more civil servants in support of the Surtax concessions to be announced next week after the council elections?

Sir E. Boyle: Such representations might not be very proper, but this whole subject is one which doubtless we shall have opportunities of discussing in the near future.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

Ready-mixed Concrete

Dr. Stross: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that when ready-mixed concrete is required in North Staffordshire, only one firm tenders; and, in view of this evidence of monopoly practice, if he will

refer the matter to the Monopolies Commission.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Niall Macpherson): On the information before him, my right hon. Friend sees no reason to believe that the absence of other tenders is due to anything more than normal commercial considerations on the part of other potential suppliers.

Dr. Stross: Is that not a very strange reply? It really is using the negative procedure. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there should never be any competition in this field? Is he content that these firms should parcel out each territory like cock robins in a wood and that we should have to pay for it? How many local authorities have protested about this?

Mr. Macpherson: If the hon. Gentleman has any information that the territory has been parcelled out as he suggests, he should bring that to the attention of the Registrar of the Restrictive Practices Court. This is not a monopoly matter; there is no evidence of monopoly here.

Mrs. Slater: The Minister says there is no evidence of a monopoly, but is it not quite obvious that every local authority is held at the point of a pistol by the action of these concrete firms which put exactly the same price in their tenders? Is he not prepared to do something more about it in the interests of fairness and justice to every local authority?

Mr. Macpherson: If it is the case, as the hon. Lady says, that all the firms tender the same price and if that is the result of some agreement, that is a matter which should be brought to the attention of the Restrictive Practices Court. It is open to the hon. Lady to bring it to the attention of the Registrar.

Mr. Jay: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that the cement industry has recently come before the Restrictive Practices Court and there is no denial whatever that there is a price ring?

Mr. Macpherson: There is no denial about the cement industry, but in this Question we are not dealing with the cement industry. It is dealt with in the next Question.

Cement, Macadam and Electric Limps

Dr. Stross: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that tenders received by the council of Stoke-on-Trent for cement, macadam and electric lamps are often identical in price; and whether, in view of this further evidence of monopoly practice, he will refer these matters to the Monopolies Commission.

Mr. N. Macpherson: The information which the hon Member has sent to my right hon. Friend shows that tenders recently received by the council for these goods were identical in some cases, but not, in all. As regards the second part of the Question, agreements between manufacturers of cement and macadam which may result in identical tendering are matters for the Restrictive Practices Court, and the Court has recently found an agreement on cement to be consistent with the public interest. As regards electric lamps, my right hon. Friend does not consider that the information provided by the hon. Member shows that there is either an agreement or a monopoly.

Dr. Stross: It does not seem that we are to get any satisfaction out of the hon. Gentleman. In view of that, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter as soon as possible on the Adjournment.

Hong Kong Cotton Agreement

Mr. C. Osborne: asked the President of the Board of Trade what official discussions have taken place with the Hong Kong Cotton Employers' Association to terminate the United Kingdom-Hong Kong three-year cotton pact, by which imports from Hong Kong to the United Kingdom are limited; what recent views have been expressed to Her Majesty's Government by the Lancashire cotton trade regarding unlimited imports; what communications he has had with the industry; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. N. Macpherson: The voluntary undertaking by the Hong Kong industry expires in February, 1962, and I am not aware that any discussions for its termination have taken place. The Lancashire industry has expressed the view that unlimited duty free imports would

do grave damage and drastically reduce re-equipment. Lord Rochdale, the Chairman of the Cotton Board, is in close touch with my right hon. Friend on this as on other matters affecting the cotton industry. My right hon. Friend informed him that the Government fully recognise the great importance of this matter both to Lancashire and the Commonwealth countries concerned.

Mr. Osborne: Since this voluntary agreement will terminate in less than a year's time and since the Government admit that unrestricted imports from Hong Kong would very seriously affect the Lancashire position, surely the Government cannot wash their hands of responsibility? Is my hon. Friend aware that the Hong Kong manufacturers have publicly stated that they have no intention of being bound by this agreement when it ends? Surely the Government should do something now and not wait until February when the crisis will be upon us? Should they not take some action?

Mr. Macpherson: The previous agreement was an inter-industry agreement and it is the view of the Government that that is the basis on which any future agreement should be negotiated.

Mr. S. Silverman: Does the hon. Gentleman not remember that more than Hong Kong is concerned in this matter and that the voluntary restrictions on the import of cheap cotton products by India and Pakistan are conditional upon the Hong Kong agreement? Therefore, if the Hong Kong agreement is not renewed or extended a very grave situation is likely to be produced in Lancashire. Many millions of public money spent recently under the Cotton Industry Act in the hope of reviving the industry will have been wasted, so that the last position will be worse than the first.

Mr. Macpherson: My right hon. Friend is very keenly aware of the importance of this matter to Lancashire, but he is also aware that the interests and welfare of other Commonwealth countries are involved as well. He considers that this matter is one which should be negotiated between the interests concerned.

Mr. Osborne: May I put this to the Minister? This problem is much too big for the trade to handle. Is my hon.


Friend aware that last October when I was in Hong Kong the leading spinners told me definitely that they had no intention of being bound by this agreement when it comes to an end in February? Surely the Government should do something now and not allow a crisis to arise next February and find that the industry cannot manage it? Will not he do something now?

Mr. Macpherson: The agreement still has ten months to run. This was a matter successfully dealt with between the industries. In spite of very great difficulties, it was previously negotiated with concessions on both sides. My right hon. Friend is by no means despairing of a similar agreement being negotiated.

Mr. Silverman: In view of the devastatingly unsatisfactory answer which the Minister has given, I beg to give notice that I will seek to raise the matter at the first suitable opportunity.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCIENCE

D.S.I.R. Research Facilities (Scottish Firms)

Mr. W. Hamilton: asked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science what steps he intends to take to encourage Scottish firms to take advantage of the research facilities provided by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research.

The Parliamentary Secretary for Science (Mr. Denzil Freeth): The research facilities of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research are made known to Scottish firms in a variety of ways—through the scientific and technical Press, by exhibitions and conferences, and through direct liaison by staff from D.S.I.R. stations located in Scotland and also in the South.
The Branch Office in Edinburgh keeps in close touch with firms already interested in research and development, through the Scottish Research Laboratories' Mutual Assistance Scheme. This office is constantly seeking to enlarge its contacts with Scottish firms and to direct their attention to research projects of specific interest.

Mr. Hamilton: Has the hon. Gentleman seen the report in The Scotsman of

30th March last that one of the D.S.I.R. laboratories had invited 200 handpicked firms in Scotland to examine its facilities and that out of those 200 only 15 bothered to reply and only 11 took the trouble to go to see the facilities? In view of this quite deplorable circumstance, what action will the hon. Gentleman and his Department take to wake these firms up?

Mr. Freeth: I think the hon. Member will agree that one can issue invitations but one cannot compel people to accept them. He will remember the parable in the Bible to that effect.

Mr. Hamilton: But what is the hon. Gentleman prepared to do to further knowledge of the D.S.I.R. by Scottish firms and to emphasise the importance of using the facilities that, after all, they are paying for?

Mr. Freeth: My noble Friend and myself do our best and the staff of D.S.I.R. does its very best to bring all the facilities available to the attention of Scottish firms. The hon. Member can himself act by being a missionary in this respect.

Mr. Hoy: Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that the figures quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. W. Hamilton) reflect no credit on those in Scotland who were invited? Might it not be a good thing if the hon. Gentleman and the Secretary of State had a meeting to discuss this problem, because these services are being neglected? Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that it might be that, arising out of some joint meeting between his Department and the Scottish Office, some plan might be formulated to produce the results which Scotland so badly requires?

Mr. Freeth: We are in close and continuing contact with the Offices of the Secretary of State as equally is the D.S.I.R. with ourselves.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF WORKS

Royal Palaces (Expenditure)

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Minister of Works if he will give further details of the items of expenditure involved in the increase of £141,108 to a total of £807,000 in the estimate for expenditure on the Royal Palaces, in


view of the necessarily limited explanation published in the Civil Estimates.

The Minister of Works (Lord John Hope): As the Answer is rather long, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Allaun: Would it not be better if the Government devoted most of this money, materials, and building labour to relieving the really tragic conditions of other British families whose needs are far more serious?

Lord John Hope: I think that when the hon. Member reads the detailed Answer he will see that that supplementary question is not really relevant.

Following is the Answer:
The increase of £7,440 on Subhead B.1 (Salaries, etc.), is due mainly to wage increases and extra staff for dealing with visitors at Palaces open to the public.
Details of the increase of £56,700 on Subhead C.1 (New Works, etc.), and of £13,000 on Subhead C.2 (Payment to Royal Borough of Windsor) are given in the printed Estimates.
The increase of £61,918 on Subhead D (Maintenance and Repairs) is due to wage increases and to the inclusion of two sizeable maintenance items (renewal of eroded stonework at Buckingham Palace and repairs to the banks of the Longford River, Hampton Court) which can no longer be deferred.
The increase of £2,050 on Subhead E.2 (Furniture and Equipment—repair and maintenance) is due to wage increases.

Cement Supplies, Manchester

Mr. W. R. Williams: asked the Minister of Works whether he is aware that builders and contractors in the Manchester area are experiencing difficulties in obtaining the supplies of cement required for essential building purposes; and what action he proposes to take to remedy the position and to ensure proper distribution.

Lord John Hope: No difficulties in obtaining cement have been brought to my notice. Dry weather in the Manchester area has increased demand, but I understand that the cement industry is aware of this, and is taking steps to meet it.

Mr. Williams: Is the noble Lord aware that on a number of occasions in recent months it has been necessary to obtain supplies from the London area

at an increased cost of £2 per ton? Does he not think that this is evidence of unequal distribution of cement where it is already available?

Lord John Hope: I should be grateful for definite examples of what the hon. Member says has happened. In that north-west area in February of this year deliveries of cement were 4 per cent. higher than they were in February of last year.

Vientiane (Staff)

Mr. Harold Davies: asked the Minister of Works what improvements have been made by him in the pay and allowances to his staff working in Vientiane since the hon. Member for Leek raised this question on 15th May 1959.

Lord John Hope: There is no Ministry of Works staff now serving in Vientiane.

Mr. Davies: In view of the fact that there is no Ministry of Works staff serving there now it is obvious that the staff has completed the task which it was sent out there to do when I was there two years ago. Were the staff's conditions improved as was promised to me in 1959?

Lord John Hope: The hon. Member might be good enough to put a Question down about the present employment of the staff. That is quite different from the Question which he has now asked.

Mr. Davies: That is not the point. Is the Minister aware that the House was promised that these people who were working in difficult conditions without air conditioning and were being paid poor allowances would be given some aid when I put the Question down in May, 1959? The simple question is: did they get that?

Lord John Hope: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Davies: Why did I not have that answer in the first place?

Lord John Hope: The hon. Member is so short and brisk with his questions that I waited to be sure that he had asked the whole lot. The answer is that their pay and allowances were increased.

Mr. Davies: I thank the noble Lord.

Oral Answers to Questions — COMMITTEE OF ENQUIRY ON SECURITY

Mr. G. Brown: asked the Prime Minister what representations he has received concerning the appointment of an additional Member to the Committee of Enquiry on Security who could contribute practical experience of the security services or bring scientific knowledge to the committee; and what decision he has made.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. R. A. Butler): I have been asked to reply.
I have received representations from the right hon. Gentleman, to which I have replied to the effect that I was grateful to him for his suggestion but that we cannot now add such an extra member to the Committee of Enquiry.

Mr. Brown: But the reply which I received says nothing on whether the right hon. Gentleman realises that this would be a good thing to do. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that it would be a good thing to have such a member, or is he merely relying on the fact that since we did not know whom he would appoint we could not make representations until he had appointed them?

Mr. Butler: I think that every effort was made to appreciate and understand the wishes of the Opposition. I think that the Opposition expressed its understanding that we had made the terms of the inquiry as wide as possible. As regards the membership, it is, of course, the position that the Government appoint the members, and the Government appointed the members whom they thought most suitable for the work Chat they have in hand.

Mr. Brown: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is not so much the feeling of the Opposition but the general feeling in the country at large, and particularly among those who know about these things? The right hon. Gentleman certainly made the terms wider in view of our representations, but is he aware that many people are now saying that the membership of the Committee is not in keeping with the terms given? Is he aware that many names come to mind not only to us but to all sorts of people, who clearly identify them-

selves? Why is the right hon. Gentleman being so obstinate, since this Committee has not gone very far with its work, and why does he refuse to look at what many people who know about these things think ought to be done to appoint a man of this kind on the Committee?

Mr. Butler: I have no doubt that the proposal was put forward by the right hon. Gentleman as a constructive one. It was so received, but after consideration we thought that the Committee as appointed was the most appropriate to carry out the task set to it.

Oral Answers to Questions — LAOS (SITUATION)

Mr. Healey: asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a statement on the latest situation concerning the negotiations for a settlement in Laos.

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Edward Heath): In their reply of 1st April to the United Kingdom Note of 23rd March, the Soviet Government expressed general agreement with our view that the Co-Chairmen of the Geneva Conference should call for a cease-fire, instruct the International Commission for Supervision and Control in Laos to verify its effectiveness and issue invitations for a 14-Power Conference.
Her Majesty's Government have now made firm proposals to the Soviet Government as to the next steps, suggesting dates for each of the various stages, but making it clear that an effective cease-fire must precede the opening of the Conference. I hope that it will be possible for the Co-Chairmen to make the necessary announcements and to issue invitations in the near future.

Mr. Healey: While welcoming very much the progress which has been made towards a peaceful settlement of this problem during the last few weeks and in particular the growing recognition, as I think, in all the countries concerned that Prince Souvanna Phouma is likely to be the most hopeful focus for a new Government in Laos, may I ask what precisely are the subjects still at issue between us and the Soviet Government? In particular, is it not the case that at the present time the initiative in the fighting is being taken by the Royal Government forces?

Mr. Heath: The answer to the last part of the supplementary question is that I understand that that is not the case. In answer to the first part of the supplementary question, we are now awaiting a reply from the Soviet Co-Chairman as to whether there are any further points of difference between us. We have now made firm proposals about the next steps. We have pointed out to the Soviet Co-Chairman that it would be possible for the appeal for the ceasefire, the reconstruction of the Control Commission and the invitations for the Conference all to be sent out at the same time, with specific dates for each, and indeed for the appeal for the cease-fire and the reconstruction of the Commission to take place at the same time. The only point we have also made is that which I mentioned in my substantive Answer, namely, that before the Conference can actually convene the ceasefire should have been verified by the Commission. We have given forms of wording which we think will be suitable for all these, and we now await the reply of the Soviet Co-Chairman.

Oral Answers to Questions — SPAIN (FOREIGN SECRETARY'S VISIT)

Mr. Harold Davies: asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make available a White Paper on the visit of the Foreign Secretary to Spain; and if he will assure the House that Her Majesty's Government will not support the entry of Spain to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.

Mr. Heath: My noble Friend will be visiting Portugal from the 25th to the 28th May and Spain from 29th to 31st May in return for the visits paid to this country by the Foreign Ministers of these countries last year. Both visits will give an opportunity for a general exchange of views on international questions and for talks on matters of mutual interest, but no agenda for these discussions has been fixed. As will be seen from the dates, these visits will be after, not before, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Ministerial meeting at Oslo, with which they have no connection.

Mr. Davies: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that 170 Members on this side of the House signed a Motion on

the Spanish position and on the suggestion which was put forward that Spain should become a member of N.A.T.O.? Is the Lord Privy Seal able to assure the House that before such action is taken the House will have a full opportunity to debate this and that a White Paper will be issued by the Government stating their position and the results of their discussions with the Spanish authorities?

Mr. Heath: As I have already said, the visit of my noble Friend has no connection with the N.A.T.O. Ministerial meeting nor with the suggestion referred to in the hon. Gentleman's Question. Membership of N.A.T.O. is entirely a matter for all the member countries of N.A.T.O.

Mr. Healey: Does the Lord Privy Seal agree that it is a very unfortunate decision to make such a visit at this time? [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because the Portuguese Government are under strong censure from the United Nations Assembly for their behaviour in Angola, and the Spanish Government show signs of driving a breach in the relations they have so far maintained with the United States. Can the right hon. Gentleman at least assure the House that there is no truth in the report by the diplomatic correspondent of The Times which suggests that Her Majesty's Government are trying to curry favour with Franco at a time when Franco's relations with the American Administration are becoming strained?

Mr. Heath: As I have explained, these visits by my noble Friend are in reply to the visits which were paid to this country last year by the Foreign Ministers of Spain and Portugal. We have diplomatic relations with Spain and Portugal, and we are very glad of the opportunity of mutual exchange and improving these relations.

Mr. M. Foot: What are the subjects of mutual interest under discussion with the Spanish Government? Will the Lord Privy Seal give a clear undertaking that these are no proposals at all for bringing Spain into the N.A.T.O. arrangements?

Mr. Heath: There is no agenda arranged for the talks my noble Friend is to have. We have many interests in common with Spain. We carry on a great deal of trade with Spain. Four hundred thousand British citizens visit Spain on holiday every year.

Mr. S. Silverman: Would it not be a strangely cynical irony if at the moment when South Africa is being excluded from the Commonwealth of Nations we should take to our bosoms Franco Spain?

Sir T. Moore: Can my right hon. Friend explain why there is this consistent vendetta against Spain on behalf of the Opposition when they fall over backwards in welcoming with open arms still more Fascist countries in the East?

Mr. W. Hamilton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, in view of the Foreign Secretary's past record, this side of the House views his interest with very grave suspicion? The right hon. Gentleman has said that the question of membership of N.A.T.O. is for the N.A.T.O. Powers themselves, but is he aware that he has not yet answered the specific point contained in the second part of my hon. Friend's Question, which asks him to give an assurance that Her Majesty's Government will not support such a move?

Mr. Heath: I cannot give assurances of that kind in advance. If this matter were to be raised, it would obviously have to be considered in the light of the circumstances at the time by all the N.A.T.O. Powers.

Mr. Gaitskell: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman say definitely, if it is the case, that there is a present, so far as he knows, no such proposal being made?

Mr. Heath: I know of no such proposal before the N.A.T.O. Powers.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT

Channel Tunnel

Mr. Rankin: asked the Minister of Transport when he expects to announce Her Majesty's Government's policy on the building of a tunnel connecting the United Kingdom with the Continent of Europe.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Ernest Marples): The matter continues under close study, but I cannot say when any announcement will be made.

Mr. Rankin: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Government's continued lack of decision on this matter may cause the shipbuilding industry the

loss of millions of pounds? Has he noticed that one of the large shipping companies has made it clear, according to Press reports, that it cannot see any purpose in proceeding with its replacements if a tunnel is to be built? If a tunnel is not to be built, the company will proceed with its replacements. Has he no indication of a policy to give to the company on this matter?

Mr. Marples: The question of a Channel tunnel does not depend only on Her Majesty's Government. The French Government are involved, and naturally they are giving it the closest study as well.

Mr. Clark Hutchison: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that no Government money is put into this absurd project?

Mr. Lipton: When will the right hon. Gentleman make an announcement about anything? Is he not aware that he keeps promising that he will consider this and look at that and all that sort of thing, but nothing ever happens? Will he make an announcement about anything—it does not matter what?

Mr. Marples: I will make the announcement that the hon. Gentleman himself is often wrong but never in doubt.

Mr. Nabarro: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that in the communiqué issued from Washington last Saturday on the talks between the Prime Minister and President Kennedy a major point was made concerning the unity of Europe and bridging the Common Market countries with the E.F.T.A. countries? Does my right hon. Friend agree that it will be practically impossible for Britain to compete effectively in Europe with many members of the Common Market unless this obstacle of the transportation of manufactured goods by sea across the sea channel is overcome?

Mr. Marples: There are many angles to this very controversial problem. Some people think that there should not be a tunnel. Some think that there should be a bridge. Some think that there should be shipping. I can assure my hon. Friend that both the French Government and ourselves are in close touch on this matter. It depends not only on Her Majesty's Government but on the French Government as well.

Mr. Rankin: While respecting whatever view the French Government may have, in view of the possible effect on shipbuilding, which should concern the right hon. Gentleman, will he tell us whether the British Government have a view in the matter? If they have not a view at the moment, will they soon be coming to a view on the matter? Can the right hon. Gentleman give us that information at least?

Mr. Marples: It is only right and proper that Her Majesty's Government should consult the French Government, because a tunnel cannot be built without the French Government agreeing to it. Therefore, the only thing to do is to consult them and see if we can come to some arrangement.

M.V. "DARA" (LOSS)

Mr. Strauss (by Private Notice): asked the Minister of Transport whether he will make a statement about the sinking of the British cargo liner "Dara".

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Ernest Marples): I am informed that the British India Steam Navigation Company's motor vessel "Dara", of 5,030 gross tons, was anchored in the Port of Dubai on Friday evening, 7th April, when she was struck by another vessel which had dragged anchor. As the weather was deteriorating, the master decided to put to sea, intending to return in the morning. A total of 770 persons, including 132 members of the crew, are known to have been on board.
Early on Saturday morning an S.O.S. was sent reporting the outbreak of fire and the ship was abandoned at about 6.30 a.m. when about 40 miles from the shore. An Army tank landing craft, a number of ships of the Royal Navy and several British and foreign merchant ships proceeded to the scene and picked up survivors. Five hundred and eighty persons were saved, but it is feared that the 190 who are missing, including 30 members of the crew, have lost their lives.
After the ship had been abandoned fire-fighting operations were undertaken from alongside the vessel in difficult conditions by three Royal Navy Frigates. She was taken in tow, but finally sank on Monday morning about 5 miles off the coast before she could be beached.
I have ordered a formal investigation, which will be held in public, into the tragic circumstances attending the loss of this ship. The necessary preliminary inquiries are already in hand.
The House will wish me to express its deep sympathy with the relatives of those who have lost their lives and with the injured, and also to pay tribute to the efforts of all those who took part in rescue operations, without which the loss of life would undoubtedly have been even more serious.

Mr. Strauss: I am sure that every hon. Member in the House will wish to associate himself with the Minister's expression of sympathy with the relatives of those who have lost their lives, and with the injured. Could the right hon. Gentleman answer two questions? First, where will the inquiry be held? It has been suggested in the Press, I think this morning, that it will be held in Bombay. Is that true, or will the final hearing be held in this country?
Secondly, could the Minister make some inquiries into a certain aspect of this sinking? According to the very moving report in The Times this morning, the treatment of the survivors who were landed at Bahrain was truly shocking. One wonders whether our British representative there was not able to take any action, or whether he did not take such action as he could have taken to look after these people.

Mr. Marples: I will certainly make inquiries into the second part of the right hon. Gentleman's supplementary question.
A surveyor from my Ministry left for Bahrain this morning to commence preliminary inquiries, and the Indian Government have offered all assistance in the inquiries. I shall wait till I hear from my surveyor before deciding where the inquiry will be held.

Mr. Shinwell: Will the inquiry take account of a statement in the Press—as far as one can gather, quite a reputable statement—that the passenger accommodation was overcrowded? This was a vessel of only 5,000 tons and, because of the overcrowding of the ordinary passenger accommodation, nearly 200 passengers were afforded deck accommodation. Is not that in defiance of Board of Trade regulations?

Mr. Marples: That will, of course, be taken into account in the inquiry, but it should be remembered that this particular ship was permitted, under the Simla Rules of 1931, to carry unberthed passengers as well as berthed passengers, and that she had a safety certificate from the Indian Government; but, naturally, the inquiry will take account of what she was permitted to do and what she actually did.

BILL PRESENTED

PUBLIC HEALTH (WASHING FACILITIES)

Bill to amend section eighty-nine of the Public Health Act, 1936, to make provision for washing facilities in places of public refreshment and for purposes connected therewith, presented by Mr. John Stonehouse; supported by Mr. Edwin Wainwright, Sir Godfrey Nicholson, Mr. Goronwy Roberts, Mr. Edward Milne, Mr. Biggs-Davison, and Mr. Victor Yates; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday and to be printed. [Bill 108.]

COMMON MARKET

3.35 p.m.

Mr. Woodrow Wyatt: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the United Kingdom's membership of the European Economic Community.
My proposed Bill has only one Clause. It lays down that Her Majesty's Government should apply to join the European Economic Community—or the Common Market, as it is better known—by 15th July. Why the urgency? It is because, as that great authority, Lord Gladwyn, said in another place, on 9th February:
… in this matter … time is working not for us, but against us."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 9th February, 1961; Vol. 228, c. 562.]
This was reinforced very sharply last week when President Kennedy talked to our Prime Minister.
Eventually, we shall have to join the Common Market. The longer we wait, the worse will be the terms we will have to accept and the less chance we will have of influencing the economic and political shape of the Common Market. Already it is solidifying fast. Tariffs inside it are down by 30 per cent. now; by the end of the year the tariffs within the Common Market will be down by 50 per cent.
Alarmed by this process—however quiet he may look now—the Lord Privy Seal, at the end of February, told the Six that we would consider a common tariff if they would meet our difficulties on the Commonwealth and agriculture. But, as usual, we were making concessions too late. Two years ago the Six might have considered such proposals. Now they feel themselves so strongly established that they are prepared to get along without Britain if Britain will not, like the other members of the Common Market, embrace the concept first and then proceed to negotiate the details. There is no danger in this. There are ample provisions in the articles of the Rome Treaty for negotiating our difficulties.
British industry is today realising the urgency of getting into Europe, while the Government still hesitate. I.C.I. has just invested, or has announced that it plans to invest, £100 million in building new chemical plants in Holland, and other


British firms are also investing in a large way in the Common Market. American industry is stepping up the rate of its investment in Europe. This means that much-needed capital investment is now being diverted from Britain, and that cannot fail, in the long run, to have a damaging effect on our policy of full employment. It will also be an increasing factor in holding back rises in our production, keeping us permanently with the worst production record in Europe.
Investment is pouring into the Common Market because it is the fastest expanding economy in the world. Two world wars and international barriers held Western Europe back. Now its energy and its technical skills are released. The hugeness of the market being created, with its capacity to contain immense competitive units within it, gives it the greatest potential growth the world has ever known, while we and the Government sit sluggishly staring at this economic phenomenon only 21 miles away from us. If we do not join it, and take a part in leading it, and profit from its benefits, we shall become a relatively poor and impotent country.
We cling hopefully to our special relationship with America. It will not be long before the economic strength of Western Europe will be so great that in the free world the effective partnership will be between America and the Common Market, not with us. We may keep our special relationship with America. It will be like the special relationship between Dublin and Whitehall.
The inescapable modern trend is for great industrial enterprises to become larger and larger to increase their efficiency of operation. But these vast industrial units are only maintained at a high peak of competitive efficiency if they are thrust forward by the need to emulate other large enterprises in the same field. That is what happens in America. That is what is happening now in the Common Market.
The area and market available to us in Britain is so small that we are reaching the position where there is a giant in each branch of industry without a rival giant to keep it on its toes. The advantage gained by merging small units together is lost by there being no competitor for the resultant mass. Our industrial octopuses can only

get the competitive stimulus that they need by having to compete on level terms with other vast organisations. Otherwise, the stagnation from which British industry suffers today will settle ever more heavily upon us.
A major objection always raised has been the Commonwealth, but this objection is rapidly disappearing. There is no difficulty in negotiating quota systems to protect special Commonwealth export markets, such as New Zealand butter.
The new members of the Commonwealth need economic aid. If we stay out of the Common Market, Western Europe will be in a far better position to provide it than we shall be. What influence we have with the newer members of the Commonwealth will then pass to the Common Market, because that will be the only source, apart from America, from which they can get large scale help. But, in any case, it will be of no comfort to the Commonwealth if Britain grows relatively weaker, as she will if we stay out of the Common Market. The stronger Britain is, the better for the Commonwealth.
British agriculture has understandable fears, but, only on 20th March, Dr. Mansholt, Vice-President of the Common Market Commission, who is in charge of agriculture, explained that British agriculture's difficulties could easily be met. A compromise could be found by which the Continent lowered its tariffs and introduced subsidies while we lowered our subsidies and had small import levies, without the British farmer being one whit the worse off.
It is said that the French do not want us. Fundamentally, this is, I believe, untrue. The French Foreign Secretary recently urged Britain to accept the Rome Treaty. But, even if it were true, it is no reason for our not presenting the French with a situation in which they could not refuse to allow us in.
The longer we delay, the more chance there is of vested interests growing up to prevent our joining the Common Market. We cannot afford to see a huge economic and political unit built up a few miles away from us in which we have no say whatever. It will be a power bigger than Napoleon's, bigger than Khrushchev's, bigger than the United States. We can


either take a part in directing it, or be one of its insignificant offshore islands.
Our entry into the Common Market will both stimulate our industry at home and give political stability and a wholesome political shape to whatever emerges in Western Europe. Some of the members of the Common Market have not in the past had a very good record in the matter of totalitarianism. Britain is the country most likely to be able to counteract any such tendencies in the future and prevent any likelihood of a huge totalitarian Western Europe developing which would utterly destroy us.
In Boston last Friday, the Prime Minister said that we need to think not so much nationally as in terms of wider groupings,
For".
he said,
the advantages of size, of large areas transcending national boundaries, where capital, labour and goods can move without impediment, are surely more manifest to us year by year
It seems extraordinary that a Prime Minister of Britain, always so prolific of great ideas in the past, should have to be edged into making such a statement by a young man of 44, the President of the United States. It is obvious that America wants us to join the Common Market, and, if this helps, I welcome the inspiration.
It is no good the British Government continuing to proffer insignificant concessions long after they are likely to be effective. There is only one course possible—to take the leap which would convince Europe of our sincerity and of our belief in the future of the Common-Market. Our problems can easily be ironed out, as have been all the others which have existed between the members of the Common Market.
The Prime Minister is for it, even if he states his position with his usual ambiguity. The Lord Privy Seal is for it. Most of the Cabinet are for it, even if the Leader of the House is not. All those who hope that the world will make progress towards world government are for it. Even the Financial Times, in a

remarkable leading article this morning, is for it.
Who is against our going ahead? Only those who cling to a mystical, nostalgic belief that, somehow, Britain's great past enables us to disregard the unfolding of history. If these sentimentalists triumph, they will condemn Britain to the lowest rôle in international affairs that she has occupied for many centuries, and each day that passes makes the situation less malleable and more threatening.

3.43 p.m.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I oppose the Motion. I will not trouble the House by calling a Division. I do not think that the representations made by the hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Wyatt) are worthy of it. I contend that the hon. Gentleman's Motion and his speech are a misuse of Parliamentary procedure. He knows the rules very well. Bills introduced under the Ten Minutes Rule are, by custom, reserved for technical subjects and for honest, praiseworthy Bills which escape other treatment. To attempt to introduce a highly polemical topic—this is not the first occasion on which the hon. Member has attempted it—is a grave misuse of Parliamentary procedure, and I hope that the hon. Member will be dissuaded from returning to it in the future, if not by his own thinking, then by the actions of his right hon. Friend the Leader of his party.
Secondly, in case the Press should draw the conclusion from the hon. Gentleman's speech, if it is not followed by any other statement, that the House and the country acquiesce in the statement reputed to have been made by the President of the United States urging Britain to join the Common Market, I wish to say that the hon. Member's speech was a tissue of misrepresentations from one end to the other. I hope that, at the proper time, the House will have a full opportunity to debate this most urgent topic.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 12 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of Public Business):—

The House proceeded to a Division; but no Member being willing to act as Teller for the Ayes, Mr. SPEAKER declared that the Noes had it.

3.48 p.m.

Mr. Leslie Hale: May I ask for your guidance, Mr. Speaker? A little over twelve months ago I sought leave to introduce a Bill to deal with an urgent social problem relating to the London Library, the Royal College of Music and several highly important institutions which were suffering very grave difficulty by reason of a curious interpretation of the old rating system.
At a certain point in the negotiations, the Minister of Housing and Local Government was good enough to tell me, in private, but with permission to make a brief statement about it—which I made with his complete approval—that the matter was under consideration and that, on the whole, further pursuance of the Bill would serve no useful purpose because other matters were under consideration.
I thought it right, after consideration and, indeed, after advice, to ask for leave to introduce the Bill in order to permit me to explain the reasons why the Bill was being introduced and why I did not then seek the immediate approval of the House to the Measure.
You were good enough to say, Mr. Speaker, that your considered opinion was that that was an abuse of the process of the House, and that one ought not to seek leave to introduce a Measure unless one intended to seek the approval of the House for it.
In the circumstances, I ask for your observations upon the procedure we have just witnessed. Is it not an abuse of the process of the House to move for leave to introduce a Bill, which was opposed by the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke), in terms of which I did not disapprove, but Which were slightly contemptuous—I do not use that expression controversially—and then not to ask for the approval of the House and not to appoint Tellers? I was subjected to some rebuke for seeking on an issue of first importance to put fairly to the House the reasons why I wished to introduce the Bill and the reasons why, after consultation with the right hon. Gentleman, I came to the conclusion that I ought not to ask the House to vote on it.

Mr. Speaker: I remember the hon. Gentleman's case. I am obliged to him for the courteous way in which he refers to what he calls a rebuke. My view is—I hope that it is the view of the House as I seek only to interpret it—that an hon. Member is not entitled to make a speech under this Standing Order unless he intends to move the Motion. The hon. Gentleman has explained why he made his speech on the occasion to which he has referred, but I considered it an abuse of the rules of the House because he would not have had leave from the Chair to make it had the Chair known that in the last sentence he proposed to say that he did not wish to move the Motion after all.
In this instance, I am in this difficulty. I suppose that it is just possible that the hon. Gentleman who has been asking leave was unable to get anyone to tell with him. Subject to that, it would appear, prima facie, although I have not investigated the circumstances, that there is something wrong in an hon. Member using this Standing Order to ask for leave if he is not prepared to tell in favour of the proposition. I do not think it desirable that I should say any more.

Mr. Wyatt: On this occasion, I hope that the House will unanimously give leave to introduce the Bill, as it has done in other cases before. Since I first tabled the Motion for debate there have been so many changes in Government policy that everyone is now feeling in an embarrassed situation because it is clear that the Government are about to change their policy on the Common Market.

Mr. Speaker: I was not inviting the hon. Gentleman to make a speech of that character. I thought it proper to give him an opportunity of explaining why he had abused the procedure.

Mr. Wyatt: Mr. Wyatt rose—

Mr. Hale: I am grateful for that explanation—

Mr. Speaker: I think that the hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Wyatt) should be allowed to speak.

Mr. Wyatt: If there are Tellers for the proposition, I am content to vote for


it. I did not wish to follow the proposition to an embarrassing length which might prevent rather than promote the object that I had in mind.

Mr. Speaker: The House will have heard what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Mr. Hale: I am grateful for this almost politically posthumous recognition of my character. I gather that the only thing imputed to me was excessive integrity and frankness.

Mr. Speaker: I am not sure that I necessarily associate myself with those observations.

Orders of the Day — CRIMINAL JUSTICE BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

3.54 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: The recommittal Motion in the name of the hon. Lady the Member for Leeds, South-East (Miss Bacon) is not selected.

Mr. James MacColl: On a point of order. I do not wish to appear to challenge in any way the decision not to select the recommittal Motion, Mr. Speaker, but I should like your guidance about a very difficult point of procedure which seems to me to arise out of that decision.
Clause 1, which is an important Clause—you would not want me to discuss it in detail, Mr. Speaker—was discussed at length in Committee and was much improved by an Amendment placed in the Bill by the Standing Committee. As a result of that great improvement, the members of the Standing Committee who, on the whole, were critical of it in its original form did not vote against it on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill", because, in its amended form, it seemed acceptable.
I observe that there is on the Notice Paper what I regard as a rather irresponsible Amendment to ignore the decision of the Standing Committee and to restore the original words. There are many hon. Members who, while not being against the Clause in its new form, would be against it in the form in which it originally appeared but have not had an opportunity of expressing that opposition because, when they came to vote on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill", it was in its new form. It might conceivably happen that, if the House accepted the Government's Amendment, we would be faced with an entirely new situation on which no one has had an opportunity of expressing his view.
Those hon. Members who felt that the Clause in its amended form was bad would not have a chance of indicating their view by voting against the Clause in its new form and would be appearing to support a Clause which, in fact, they do not support. May we have your


guidance, Mr. Speaker, on how we can get over this procedural tangle?

Mr. Speaker: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for what he has said. I suspected the reason which prompted certain matter in the recommittal Motion. It was one of the matters which I considered, on advice, when deciding whether to select it. I cannot, on that account, change the view which I hold, that it would not be right to select any part of the recommittal Motion.

Miss Alice Bacon: Further to that point of order. While not wishing to question your right of selection in any way, Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether, when you considered the matter, you appreciated all the circumstances of the case.
Some hon. Members opposite voted for our Amendment in Committee against the advice of the Government. I think it true to say that, had that Amendment not been accepted by the Committee, some of those same hon. Members opposite may have voted with us, and probably the whole of the Clause would have been lost. If the right hon. Gentleman succeeds in taking enough hon. Members who were not members of the Committee into the Lobby with him, and this decision is reversed, we shall not have an opportunity of considering the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill." That will be a serious matter, because this is a very important Clause.

Mr. Speaker: I appreciate that. What the hon. Lady has said to me is, with due respect to her, precisely what the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) said. I am afraid that her eloquence would not change my view about the matter, because she has raised the same point.

New Clause.—(INCREASE OF PENALTIES FOR ASSISTING ESCAPE FROM PRISON, ETC.)

(1)The maximum term of imprisonment which may be imposed for an offence under section thirty-nine of the Prison Act, 1952 (which relates to assisting prisoners to escape) shall be five years instead of two years.

(2)The maximum term of imprisonment and the maximum fine which may be imposed for an offence under subsection (4) of section seventy-two, subsection (4) of section seventy-eight or subsection (4) of section eighty-two of

the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933 (which relate to assisting persons to escape from approved schools and remand homes, and other like offences), shall be respectively six months and one hundred pounds instead of two months and twenty pounds.—[Mr. Renton.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Renton): I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
Subsection I of the new Clause is identical to subsection (1) of Clause 22 in the Bill as reported, but we suggest that it should be transferred to the new Clause for convenience in drafting. It increases from two years to five years the maximum sentence of imprisonment for helping people to escape from prison as defined in the Prison Act, and that means, in effect, not only prison but also borstal and detention centres.
The object of subsection (2) of the new Clause is to increase the maximum penalties which may be awarded for various similar offences relating to approved schools and remand homes. Those offences, which are offences under the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933, include assisting or inducing a child or young person to escape from a remand home or special reception centre; taking a child or young person away from a remand home or special reception centre without lawful authority; harbouring or concealing a child or young person who has escaped or been taken away from a remand home or special reception centre; and assisting, inducing or persistently attempting to induce a person to escape from or fail to return to an approved school.
The present maximum penalties for those offences, which can be serious, are a fine of £20 or two months' imprisonment, or both. Subsection (2) of the new Clause would increase the maximum fine to £100 and the maximum term of imprisonment to six months, or both.
These offences are not frequently committed, but when they are committed they can be serious, as in a case which came before the Central Criminal Court last November in which a man had, among other things, sheltered absconders from borstal and approved schools and employed them in fresh criminal activities. The judge, His Honour Judge Maude, expressed the view that the


penalties which he was able to award were not adequate and suggested that the maximum penalty should be increased. That is what this subsection does. I think that the new Clause will generally commend itself to the House.

4.0 p.m.

Miss Bacon: We must always look very carefully at any proposal to increase penalties, but on this occasion I think that probably this proposal is reasonable. The new provision is in subsection (2), and is to increase the amount of the fine from £20 to £100 and the term of imprisonment from two months to six months.
Two things must be borne in mind in considering this new Clause. First, anybody who helps anybody to escape really knows that what he is doing is wrong, and I do not think there is any question about that at all. Secondly, and this is one thing that led me to support the new Clause, there is a tendency at the present time, which I think is to be welcomed, towards open establishments—the open prison, the open borstal, and so on—and I think it would be a pity if this trend were to be retarded because of the number of escapes and the number of people who help young persons in particular to escape. Bearing that in mind, and also the fact that this is not unreasonable, I think that we might perhaps accept the new Clause.

Mr. Leslie Hale: In view of what my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South-East (Miss Bacon) has said, may I ask the Joint Under-Secretary to tell us the number of people who have escaped from open establishments and from maximum security establishments? My impression was that the record for open establishments was exceedingly good, and that, indeed, open establishments have justified themselves by the fact that taking a prisoner into one's confidence had paid a dividend, and also that the greater number of escapes was from maximum security establishments, where prisoners, being treated like prisoners, reacted in the way in which prisoners are likely to do.
I do not think that this new Clause is highly controversial, and I would not wish to treat it as such, but I should have thought that, on the whole, the case for the fact that attempted co-operation with

the prisoner appears to pay dividends is important, and, therefore, I ask the Joint Under-Secretary if he can give us the figures.

Mr. Ede: I generally support the line taken by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale), because in my experience the number of escapes from open prison and open borstal is very low indeed. In fact, the understanding in an open borstal that if one escapes and is captured, one will not be sent back to an open borstal is in itself a pretty good sanction for maintaining this position.
What I should like to know from the Joint Under-Secretary is whether subsection (2) of the new Clause is so worded that, where a child or young person is abducted from an institution, and where the child or young person cannot be proved to be attempting to escape, but is taken out by one of the parents or some relative where, perhaps, there has been a quarrel, it will catch the actual offender who assisted the abduction, rather than assisted an escape, which is the misdeed.

Sir George Benson: I should like to ask the Joint Under-Secretary a question on subsection (1). In how many cases have escapes or attempted escapes been assisted from outside? Two years is a rather heavy sentence, and unless there has been a significant increase in the number of attempts from outside to enable prisoners to escape, I doubt very much whether there is any ground for increasing what is already a heavy penalty. I do not question for a moment the seriousness of the offence. The seriousness of the offence is one thing to take into consideration, but there is also the frequency or infrequency of the offence which should be taken into consideration.

Mr. Renton: If I may deal with the question asked by the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Sir G. Benson), as is pointed out in the last two Reports of the Prison Commissioners, the number of escapes assisted from outside has increased very considerably in the last two years. I have these figures. In 1957, there were 57 escapes assisted from outside; in 1958, the same number—57; in 1959, 87; in 1960, 126; and in 1961, recorded up to the 7th of this month. 31. These are escapes from


Prison Commission establishments, and the hon. Gentleman was referring to subsection (1).
With regard to absconding from approved schools, which the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) had in mind, the position is different.

Mr. Hale: No. The hon. Member for Oldham, West had in mind the question of escapes from open prisons.

Mr. Renton: I am sorry, but I have not got separate figures of escapes from open prisons. Approved schools are in quite a different category. They are open establishments in themselves, and, therefore, the question which the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) mentioned is pertinent to the matter. He asked whether the abducted child from an approved school would be caught by one or other of these offences under the Children and Young Persons Act, and there is no doubt that he would be so caught. If we are to increase these penalties, as is suggested in subsection (2), we shall, at the same time, be increasing the penalty for abductions from approved schools.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill.

New Clause.—(REPORTS ON APPROVED SCHOOL SYSTEM.)

The Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament—

(a) in every year, a statement of statistical information relating to approvad schools in England and Wales, including information as to their number, the numbers of admissions, releases and recalls, and such other matters as he may think appropriate;
(b) in the year nineteen hundred and sixty-four and every third subsequent year, a report on the work of the Home Department in relation to approved schools, and generally on the working of the approved school system in England and Wales (including supervision after release).—[Mr. Renton.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Renton: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
This new Clause is a result of an undertaking which I gave in the Standing Committee in response to an invitation by the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) to consider writing into the Bill what, as I expressed in the

Standing Committee, my right hon. Friend intended to do: first, to publish an annual return of statistical information about approved schools; and, secondly, to publish every three years a report on the work of the Home Office Children's Department which, of course, has as its most important sections those on approved schools.
That is what the new Clause does. It is self-explanatory, but I should add that the triennial report of the work of the Home Office Children's Department will be very broad. It will not be confined to approved schools, but here we are dealing with matters directly relevant to the Bill, and so the wording of the new Clause refers only to the "approved school system", although the report will be much wider.
We have chosen 1964 as the first year for such a report, because, as I told the Standing Committee, the next report on the work of the Children's Department will appear later this year, and, therefore, it is appropriate to legislate for a report three years later.
There are three Amendments to the proposed new Clause on the Notice Paper in the name of the hon. Lady the Member for Leeds, South-East (Miss Bacon). I wonder whether it would be convenient to the House to discuss them all together. They are in line 2, after "to", to insert:
remand homes, attendance centres and".
In line 4, after first "and", to insert:
in the case of attendance centres and approved schools".
In line 7, after "to", to insert:
remand homes, attendance centres and".

Mr. Speaker: That may be convenient. I will call them in due course, if requested.

Mr. Renton: If you will allow me, Mr. Speaker, to refer to them, I wish to say that we accept these Amendments in principle, but that we should like to consider them further. They appeared on the Notice Paper only yesterday, and at least one of them is technically defective in drafting. However, I give the undertaking that if the hon. Lady the Member for Leeds, South-East decides not to press them now we will have Amendments put down in another place which will have the same substance and effect.

Mr. Ede: As the hon. and learned Member said, I had a new Clause down in Committee along these lines and he undertook to meet it in the way in which he has done. I thank him for doing so. I am certain that it will be a good thing if the House, at the respective periods mentioned in the new Clause, can have some account of the way in which this very important part of our judicial system is working.
I leave it to my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South-East (Miss Bacon) to deal with the way in which the Minister has treated her Amendment. Personally, I welcome the widening in detail of the information to be supplied.

Miss Bacon: I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for accepting the proposal made by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) in Committee, and also for accepting the principle of the three Amendments which we have on the Notice Paper. As the hon. and learned Member knows, almost incessantly, during Committee, I drew attention to the lack of information about approved schools and from the Children's Department in general. We had hardly any information on which to conduct our discussions in Committee, and it has been very difficult to consider this part of the Bill relating to approved schools because of the lack of information. The last report from the Children's Department of the Home Office was in 1955, and, had it not been for the Durand Committee's investigations into the Carlton Approved School disturbances and the report of the Ingleby Committee, we should have had nothing on which to base our arguments.
The situation is made worse in respect of approved schools by the fact that so many of them are managed by self-appointed managers who are not responsible to any local authority and whose responsibility to the Home Office up to now has been very loose.
I am very pleased that the hon. and learned Member has put the new Clause on the Notice Paper, and I thank him for including remand homes, of which there are 53 in this country. At the moment, there is a very great shortage of remand homes. It hampers our discussions and activities in this field if we do not know very much about them and what is happening in them. The atten-

dance centres seem to be working very well, but, again, we have no information generally about what is happening in them, and unless we visit one we do not know the very good work which they are doing.
I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman again. This will be some improvement, although perhaps we might have preferred an annual report and more information from the Children's Department generally.

Mr. Victor Yates: What is the objection to a report being given earlier than every three years? The proposed provision is very unsatisfactory. We have an annual report from the Prison Commissioners. Here we are dealing with younger people and with approved schools, to be the responsibility of the Home Office. This is a new venture; we are entering upon an experiment. We ought not to wait for three years before we have a report.
I know that a lot of work is involved, but I do not know why the figure "three" has been chosen. Perhaps a report every year in this case would be too often, but I cannot see why we cannot have a report every other year. I do not think that an adequate explanation has ever been given of this decision and, if there is one, perhaps the Minister will give it and will tell us why we cannot have this information more often.
It may be that he does not want the Department to be bothered with it so often, but we are dealing with young lives and trying to save young persons from ultimately going to prison. It seems to me that the more information we can get and the more often we can get it, the better.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Leo Abse: What type of information is it intended to provide? The information is described as
a statement of statistical information … and such other matters"—
it being indicated what they are—as the Home Secretary
may think appropriate.
Many of us are concerned about the type of statistics which will be provided, because it has already been clearly stated in the recent White Paper that


the Government are apparently not interested in the deep-seated causes of crime, which they regard as being outside the field of Government action. That is a curious attitude, and those of us who are concerned about obtaining statistics in order that we may relinquish this tendency which exists in discussing crime of taking ex cathedra attitudes, or talking in a manner which is far removed from any knowledge of the clinical material, are anxious that the statistics shall not merely be figures showing who has gone in and who has gone out but shall deal with many other matters.
Before taking a view of the Clause, I should like to know whether the attitude in the White Paper against what some of us, and certainly myself, regard as important—the need for having as much knowledge as possible about the deep-seated causes of crime—will be reflected in the information which is provided.
For example, we have learned—the information has been spelled out from one report or another—that 21 out of the 33 girls approved schools have no psychiatrist visiting them, 24 approved schools for boys have no access to a psychiatrist at all, many schools have only one session a month and many even less time than that.
We know that here are youngsters with a long history of difficulty and anti-social behaviour and that an overwhelming percentage of them—about 40 per cent—are found guilty of offences within three years of being placed out, yet we also know from this type of statistical information that while they are in the hands of the community the possibility of restoring them to normalcy and saving them from prison is substantially ignored.
I want to know what all hon. Members want to know: when the statistics are being provided to show how many people have entered an approved school we want to know whether a psychiatrist has served that school, or whether support has been given to anyone in charge of the school. I know of nothing more distressing, when I have visited a girls' school, for example, than finding that those in charge of the school are at breaking point in attempting to deal with the intractable problems which

many of these girls have and yet they have no psychiatric guidance whatever.
If we take the attitude of the White Paper and ignore the unconscious motivation behind our young and older criminals, then the type of information which we can expect will be arid, valueless and useless. It is extremely important to know whether we shall have statistics which will show how many individuals in the approved schools have any special qualifications.
We know that fifteen years ago the Reynolds Committee recognised how vital it was that a healthy day-to-day relationship was formed between the boys in an approved school and a member of the staff. It urged that there should be a social worker type of staff to supplement the traditional methods of training, and the key person to affect the position was the housemaster. I ask whether it is intended to give us the information, in such statistical terms, about how many housemasters there are attached to these schools who have the proper qualifications, so that we may see whether it remains an infinitesimal proportion, as it is at present.
I ask for this type of information, because how can one do research and interpret the information which is provided if all we are to be presented with is only that type of statistics which can make the headlines by indicating whether crime is up or down, but which does not give the necessary guidance to those who wish to interpret the statistics usefully so that they may, perhaps, help to prevent crime?
Since I observe in The Times this morning an editorial adversely commenting on the delay on the part of the Home Office in publishing the Children's Department report I would ask, too, whether it is intended that this report which is now, lamentably, to be postponed till 1964—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I hope that that is not correct, for the sooner and the more readily it comes the better, obviously, for all of us. However, I ask for an assurance that when the report is published we can also have at the same time the report of the Children's Department.
After all, it must surely be clear that if we are usefully to interpret what is going on we must know what is going


on inside our local authority homes. Anyone who has any experience in dealing with these types of problems knows full well that if we are to deal with the problem of delinquency we have to have some knowledge of what is happening inside the local authority homes where, as a result of the foster parent system which has been introduced, we have the residue of our most intractable material. Everybody who is interested in the problems of crime should know that it is in this pre-delinquent phase that we have the opportunity of rescuing potential delinquents.
Statistical information from one Department will be of very little value unless, at the same time, we can have, for example, information on how far inside the children's homes we have improved the position—

Mr. Speaker: It is true that we are having a general discussion on the new Clause and the Amendments put down to it, but I do not find anything about this matter in the new Clause or the Amendments.

Mr. Abse: I am obliged, Mr. Speaker. All I was endeavouring to do, perhaps improperly, was to draw into this picture the suggestion that these reports should coincide with other reports so that the whole of the statistics which are to be provided will give greater illumination to all Members wanting to do general research.
The main point of my intervention is that I do not want, and I am sure that many other hon. Members do not want, the barren approach which does exist inside the Home Office, the stultifying approach to genuine research. We do not want this to be pursued in such a way that the statistics which are to be available do not give greater illumination to us who, at present, find great difficulty in gaining access to the information which we believe would help us in making some contribution to the prevention of crime.

Mr. Renton: As I said when I moved the Second Reading of the Clause, the next report will be published this year and the one after that will be in 1964. It will be a report covering the whole work of the Children's Department. The interest of the Home Office in research is

manifest from the White Paper on Penal Practice in a Changing Society which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) appears to have ignored.
The hon. Member asks what statistics will be included in the annual return. As he will see from the new Clause, the number of releases has to be included and such other matters as my right hon. Friend thinks appropriate. It is proposed to give the average length of stay at approved schools; particulars of transfers to and from closed units and the average length of stay; transfers to borstal; the numbers removed from approved schools under Clause 15 and their disposal; a record of children released from approved schools; the number of schools opened during this year and the number closed; and particulars of expenditure. And we will bear in mind the other suggestions which the hon. Member has made.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. V. Yates) asks why are we not to have in the reports of the Children's Department a section on approved schools more often than three years. The answer is threefold: first, that, in any event, there will be all this information in the annual statistical return; secondly, that the Children's Department does not run any approved schools in the same way as the Prison Commissioners, who produce an annual report, run their own establishments; and, thirdly, that bearing in mind that periodical reports so far of the Children's Department have been about every five or six years we feel that three years is about right.
Bearing in mind the nature of the Children's Department's responsibilities, one should not compare those with the responsibilities either of the Prison Commissioners, who have four times as many people under their charge, and under their direct charge, or of the Ministry of Education. That would be quite inappropriate, for it deals with about 8 million children.
We feel that three years is about the right period. As the hon. Lady the Member for Leeds, South-East (Miss Bacon) pointed out, this is a very great improvement on what has gone before. I welcome what she said about this proposal, and I hope that she and others will feel that there is no lack of


suitable and adequate information in the future.

Miss Bacon: I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will not take anything I said as meaning that I am absolutely satisfied in this respect. Would he not agree that the fact that children in the approved schools are not under the direct control of the Home Office, or, in many cases, the local authority, is a reason why it is most important that we should get a report as frequently as possible?
The hon. and learned Gentleman has himself referred to the Prison Commissioners and prisons and borstal. What is done there it ought to be as easy to do when we are dealing with the fewer number of children in approved schools. The fact that they are not under the direct control of any elected body or authority is an even greater reason why we ought to have as much information as possible.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: Does the Lady wish to move her Amendments?

Miss Bacon: In view of the undertaking which the hon. and learned Gentleman has given, that he will seek at a later stage to have the principle of these Amendments included in the Bill, I do not wish to move them, Mr. Speaker.

Clause added to the Bill.

New Clause.—(CORPORAL PUNISHMENT FOR YOUNG OFFENDERS, ON SECOND AND SUBSEQUENT CONVICTION.)

Magistrates' courts and the superior courts shall have the power to pass a sentence of corporal punishment as an alternative to a sentence of detention in remand homes, detention centres, Borstal institutions or prison on young male offenders convicted of crimes of violence for whatever purpose committed, such punishment to be with the cane up to the age of seventeen years and with the birch for offenders of more than seventeen but less than twenty-one years of age:

Provided that no such sentence of corporal punishment shall be passed on such offender except in the case of a second or subsequent conviction for such a crime.—[Sir T. Moore.];

Brought up, and read the First time.

4.30 p.m.

Sir Thomas Moore: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: I think that it would be for the general convenience if we were to have on this Clause a general debate on the desirability or otherwise of introducing corporal punishment for young offenders.

Sir T. Moore: I am much obliged. Mr. Speaker, and I think that ail my hon. Friends are, too, that you have selected this new Clause so as to give a wide and general debate on this subject which is causing so much concern and anxiety to so many of our fellow subjects. I am deeply indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Kirkdale (Mr. N. Pannell), whose new Clause this is, for generously permitting me, with your co-operation, Mr. Speaker, to move it, and I hope that he will succeed in catching your eye later.
During the Second Reading debate I used the word "we" many times, meaning, of course, my hon. Friends and myself who think alike on this subject of crime and punishment. We desire to protect the weak and helpless and to deter by physical punishment or the threat of it—and we make no apology for that. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend the Joint Under-Secretary will pay particular attention to the last few lines of the Clause. We desire to deter, by physical punishment, or the threat of it, those brutes and monsters who still persist in carrying out their acts of thuggery and violence against harmless and helpless people.
I was interrupted while making my speech during the Second Reading debate by a voice from this side of the House—I think that it was my hon. Friend the Member for Carlton (Sir K. Pickthorn)—who was displaying his usual desire for meticulous accuracy. He asked, "Who are 'we'?" I did not reply then, but I will do so now. I apologise to the House if I appear to repeat remarks which I made during the Committee stage discussions and I will try to avoid doing so as much as possible. As is admitted by the Home Office Advisory Council in its Report, "we" represents 77 per cent. of our fellow subjects in Britain. According to my correspondence, I should have thought that the figure was more like 99·9 per cent. because out of 1,200 letters which I have received there have been only 15 which were hostile to our aim.


In a few moments I will read one of them.
We also represent the present Lord Chief Justice, the former Lord Chief Justice, a number of High Court judges and four-to-one majority of the Magistrates' Association. Among those who have written to us are clerks to the justices, magistrates, police officers, social workers, probation officers—in fact, representatives of many of those people who work among others, whether law breakers or law abiders.
I mentioned that there is a minute number of people opposed to our views and efforts. I think that hon. Members will be interested in one letter which I received, because of the source from which it came. One of the pregnant remarks contained in this letter is:
Don't you dare bring back corporal punishment or else you will stand the consequences of reprisal … you old buzzard …
The writer ends with this fragrant piece:
Don't you dare bring back that birch, and don't you ever open your big stinking mouth about it again.
The writer signs his name and gives me his address, to which he adds, "world youth organiser". Heaven help world youth. I hope that hon. Members opposite appreciate the importance of this support. I asked the writer to come and see me to discuss the World Youth Organisation, because I thought that his views might be interesting.
Our aim is to restore to the courts the power to impose a sentence of corporal punishment for acts of violence, "for whatever purpose committed"—to use the words of the Clause. The reason we inserted the words, "for whatever purpose committed" was to avoid what is, if I may say so with respect, the somewhat hackneyed excuse so often advanced by Home Office spokesmen that in the case of the one crime for which corporal punishment was inflicted before 1948—robbery with violence—there has been no substantial change since its abolition.
Of course there would not be any substantial change. As I have so frequently said before, the whole social and economic conditions of our country have entirely changed since pre-war days, when the Cadogan Committee recommended the abolition. At that time unemployment figures were high and poverty was

far too prevalent, and as a result, men committed acts of violence for money or for food.
Today, as we all know, there are, happily, no such compulsive reasons as hunger or need, since there is full employment, a high standard of living and an adequate amount of money available—sometimes one wonders where there is not too much money. Nowadays young men, and men who are not so young, attack the weak, the frail and the lonely for many reasons; excitement, spite or lust—sometimes, admittedly, for gain—or just for the fun of it. The only requirement demanded by these bullies was, and still is, that their victims shall be weaker than themselves, so courageous are these brutes.
Is it odd, then, that the vast majority of our people should demand, through us, their spokesmen in this House, that these brutal thugs should be given a taste of the pain they so recklessly and wantonly inflict on others? Neither those who make this demand, nor we, are sadists. We do not want punishment for the sake of it. We do not want corporal punishment inflicted lightly, heedlessly or recklessly. But we do want the courts to hold that power in reserve so that it may be used when, in the opinion of the courts, an offence is of such a brutal, violent or repetitive character that no other form of punishment is suitable.
We sincerely believe that corporal punishment is the only effective punishment to deter criminals from repeating their crime or others from committing it. We do not agree with those whose humanity and reforming zeal appears to be almost entirely directed to the criminal. Our sympathy goes to the victim, to the parents of the victim and to those who have loved or still love the victim. Instead of waiting until a crime of violence has been committed, and then setting out to reform the wrong-doer and the evil-doer, we believe it better to deter him from committing an offence by letting him know in advance what punishment may come to him. As I have said before, we would put the horse in front of the cart.
I feel that, once again, I must deal with the defensive policy put forward by my right hon. Friend and repeated, not only in the report of the Home


Office Advisory Committee, but ad nauseam by many well-meaning but possibly thoughtless critics. It is that we seek to put the clock back a hundred years. How often have we heard that argument advanced. With respect to my right hon. Friend, it is pure humbug. It is not we who want to put the clock back a hundred years; it is these young and not so young thugs who have brought our country back to the days of a century ago. Then those people—as do their successors today—struck at the old and the feeble, at those living in isolated cottages, at women in the dark, or the fog, and at young girls in lonely places; so courageous are these louts when their victims are weaker than themselves.
We recognise one problem, the difficulty of proving—I stress that word—that corporal punishment is the deterrent which we believe it to be. We are encouraged to think that it is by the fact that the Home Secretary has himself retained that form of punishment for those prison inmates who commit acts of violence in prison, and also by the opinions of those who have suffered such punishment. I have here a letter from a man—I have his name and address—who says:
I say bring back the cat and birch and I know what I am talking about as I have been flogged over twenty years ago and have a clean record ever since …
Another man, writing from the Royal Air Forces Association, says:
I have done four stretches (six years in all) and mixed with yobs for the past thirty years whose policy is, 'Bash and bash hard'. All of them had only one fear which is the cat. They are all terrified of getting flogged.
The words "fear" and "cat" are in capital letters.
I met many old lags in stir who said 'Give me time, but not the cat'.
I could go on, but that is enough for the moment.

Miss Bacon: How does the hon. Gentleman square that with the example he gives so often of boys voting to be birched rather than go to borstal?

Sir T. Moore: They probably voted that way because they had not experienced birching. I am glad that the hon. Lady reminded me of that point. I shall mention it later.
We were up against the problem of proof. Since no one knows how many crimes of violence would not have been committed had corporal punishment been available, and known to be available, this is a very difficult problem to solve. But we know that the present methods, which have been practised since 1948, have not succeeded in quelling this violent wave of crime, and the proposed methods in the Bill will not have any more salutary effect, since they are merely an extension of the existing system. The figures speak for themselves. I will quote them again. In 1938, there were 2,800 crimes of violence. In 1949—after abolition—the number had risen to 5,235, and in 1958 it was 13,800. On my calculation that gives us the frightening figure of 37 crimes of violence every day—and the figures are steadily mounting.
That was the position in Committee, and so we put down a new Clause of a general character seeking to give the courts power to inflict corporal punishment for any crime of violence against the person. That Clause was heavily defeated in Committee, by 26 votes to 6—partly due to the Opposition feeling a sense of moral obligation to vote against the reintroduction of something which their own Government had abolished in 1948 and partly because many of my hon. Friends were uncertain of the deterrent effect of corporal punishment. Now we are on the Report stage. As we were defeated in Committee on this simple Clause we felt that we would be defeated on Report if we put down the same Clause. We therefore had to think of something better to achieve our purpose, which is to stop indiscriminate thuggery.
I put down a Clause—which was not selected—giving the offender a choice of corporal punishment or imprisonment. The Clause that we are now discussing perhaps achieves more, because the young offender will now have a warning that although he is not going to be whipped or birched if it is his first offence he can look forward to corporal punishment if he commits the offence again.
I now turn to the point raised by the hon. Member for Leeds, South-East (Miss Bacon). I was greatly influenced by the letter to which she refers. As the House may remember, I got into considerable


trouble over it. Mr. Speaker, who is not in the Chair at the moment, will probably remember it, because he also got into trouble. The letter was from a Mr. Gash, and was published in the Daily Mail. He was a master in a borstal institution, and he conducted a private inquiry among 53 boys asking them if they favoured the reintroduction of corporal punishment. Fifty-one of the boys said "Yes", and two said "No".
Their reasons included the following:
It would teach us a better lesson than this place—it's a kip here … It would stop lads getting into trouble more than once … It would stop lads like me getting a record … It would stop 'Teds' beating people up—they don't like pain themselves, they are yellow on their own … I got borstal for my first offence and I've learned more about crime here than I ever knew … The birch would hurt us. Borstal doesn't. It's too soft—that's why we don't mind a second time inside.
Those are statements—unbiassed and unsolicited—from people who believe, as we do, that a sterner punishment is required for these young lads. We thought that in Mr. Gash we had got somebody who was well worth quoting.
The Clause we are now discussing gives the young criminal a second chance. He may have been weak, and may have been led away by a stronger personality the first time. Since then he may have acquired a girl friend. He may want to get married and bring up a family, or to obtain a good job. The Clause gives him an opportunity for these things. He has the warning that next time he is convicted of such an offence he will receive corporal punishment. My Clause is an admirable one, although I cannot discuss it here. I will not do so, although if any of my hon. Friends wish to do so I wish them luck.
4.45 p.m.
Various arguments against the Clause will, no doubt, be used this afternoon, just as they have been used before, but my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has given us a very good example of the value of corporal punishment in that he has retained it in respect of prisoners who use violence against warders. Today's newspapers contain many examples of this. A further question is, "Who will administer corporal punishment?" That question was asked in Committee. I would merely say that

corporal punishment was available before 1948 for the crime of robbery with violence and people were then found to administer it. There should not be any difficulty in finding people to do so now.
People have been found to administer the much more severe form of corpora] punishment—flogging. The "cat" is used in prison. Further, as one correspondent pointed out to me, there is a public executioner. Why not have a corps of public punishers? These are possibilities which occur to people who are genuinely disturbed and unhappy about the whole business.

Mr. V. Yates: How would the hon. Member like to do it?

Sir T. Moore: I was punished on many occasions when I was young, but that does not matter. Among my correspondents on that point I found many people who were moved by the horrible things which that hypocritical brute Jones inflicted on an immature Girl Guide, and many of them asked me to pass on their names to the Home Secretary as being willing and anxious to take on the job of inflicting punishment on his hide. Unfortunately, he does not come within the scope of the Bill, so it is no use my passing on this information.
I have already quoted in Committee another letter, sent to me by a clergyman of the Church of England. He says:
I would willingly wield the whip myself against the thugs who beat up and slashed my gentle wife as she was coming home from a church meeting the other evening. I can now find it in my heart to hope that
some others
will never have a similar terrifying and humiliating experience.
I therefore feel that there is one more case to be answered, and that is the last bleat of the abolitionists that violence breeds violence. To them I say, where does the violence start, and whom is it started against, and whom is it directed against? It is directed, as we know, against the old and the weak and the young and the trusting. The only proviso, as I have said, is that the victims must be weaker than the thugs. If we turn to the Bible we find many precedents which will, perhaps, influence some hon. Members. We find our Lord


using the whip against the moneylenders and the evil-doers in the temple.

Mr. Alan Fitch: Did He do so literally?

Sir T. Moore: I was not there. I do not know. I can only quote the Bible as my source.
If we turn to the Gospels we find it said in St. Matthew, chapter 18, verse 6, and also in St. Mark and St. Luke that
… whoso shall offend one of these little ones … it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.
That seems a somewhat violent form of punishment, but that is what the Bible authorises us to do.
The clergyman's letter I have quoted concludes:
Yours in utter horror and pain of heart at the criminals?
This is the final word I have to say, and I apologise for taking much longer than usual. There is one thing which we should drive home. In all the 83 Sections and the ten Schedules of the Criminal Justice Act, 1948, there is not one mention of the word "victim". Not is there a mention of it in the Bill. Yet it is the victim who is battered, bruised, maimed, mutilated and humiliated. It is the victim who even gets murdered at times. Would it not be far better if the Government were to bring in a Bill protecting the people against violence and thuggery? After all, the people have the right to demand of the Government that they carry out the primary duty of Government—that is, to protect the people.

Sir G. Benson: This is not the first time that we have discussed corporal punishment in this House. The real question we face is: is there any evidence that corporal punishment is a more effective form of deterrent than the other forms of deterrent at our disposal? It is a matter of fact. The facts have been investigated with very great care more than once.
The first serious investigation was carried out by a Departmental Committee in 1938, which, after examining all the available evidence, presented a unanimous report, rejecting the idea of the reintroduction of corporal punishment. It may be said that circumstances have changed since then. There has

been another and much more recent investigation. The matter was referred to the Home Office Advisory Council by the Home Secretary. I served as a member of that Council. We took an enormous amount of evidence from practically everybody who offered to give it—even from the hon. Member for Ayr (Sir T. Moore).
When the Council started its investigations, it was divided very sharply in its opinions between those in favour of corporal punishment and those against, but as a result of the very large amount of evidence that we received the final report was a unanimous rejection of the reintroduction of corporal punishment. We have thus had two very careful investigations, one by a Departmental Committee in 1938, and one by the Home Office Advisory Council. They took massive evidence, weighed the subject, and both came unanimously to the conclusion that corporal punishment should not be reintroduced.

Mr. W. R. van Straubenzee: I interrupt the hon. Gentleman with some hesitation, knowing his detailed knowledge of this subject. He places us upon inquiry to produce evidence that corporal punishment is a deterrent. I ask him what factual evidence he would be able to rely upon for an opinion which he holds and I share—that is, that detention centres are a deterrent. What factual evidence would he be able to introduce if I were to put him on inquiry on that matter?

Sir G. Benson: I did not say that corporal punishment was not a deterrent. Any form of punishment is a deterrent. The case against corporal punishment is that there is not a solitary shred of evidence, either in the past or in the present, to show that it is any more effective than other forms of punishment. That is the case against it.

Mr. van Straubenzee: But it is a deterrent.

Sir G. Benson: Of course it is a deterrent. No one in his senses has ever denied that. But what has to be established if we are to reintroduce it is that it is a deterrent which we require in addition to the other deterrents, and that it is more effective than those deterrents which already exist. I say categorically


that the investigations we have had on that specific point have both led to the conclusion that it was not more effective than ordinary imprisonment and other forms of penalty.
Therefore, I suggest that, in view of the fact that we have something equally efficient with corporal punishment it would be a retrograde step to go back to a penalty which has literally nothing to recommend it.

Mr. Gerald Nabarro: I rise to support the new Clause, and I hope that I shall do so in a quite mild fashion. I am not by instinct a flogger as a method of penal reform. I find the whole topic rather distasteful to discuss publicly or privately and I have only been drawn into the controversy by the urgency of the pleas made to me by constituents and many others who are gravely concerned about the increase in crimes of violence.
Whether or not corporal punishment is a really effective deterrent in present circumstances I find it hard to adjudicate, and I think that every other hon. Member must surely be in the same position. It is thirteen years since corporal punishment was, for all effective purposes save for violent assaults on warders in prisons, abolished. But what is indisputable, in my view, and is reflected in the anxieties expressed by the overwhelming majority of the general public, is the very large increase in crimes of violence against the person.
It is always easy to take as an example a particular year and compare it with another particular year when discussing reformative processes in this sphere, or any other. But it is fair to say that a direct comparison of what occurred in 1948, immediately prior to the abolition of the somewhat limited facilities for the imposition of corporal punishment, should be made, after the passage of a whole decade, with what occurred ten years later in 1958. I have been at great pains to assemble all the relevant statistics and to arrange them under three headings, so that the statistics cannot be attacked on any grounds of inaccuracy.
5.0 p.m.
In 1948, 225 male persons under the age of 17 were found guilty of indictable offences against the person. In 1958,

there were 1,012. That is an increase of 350 per cent. in ten years. In the age group between 17 and 21 380 male persons were found guilty of indictable offences of violence against a person. Ten years later, in 1958, there were 2,051, an increase of 440 per cent. By way of comparison and only as a passing reference, in the age group 21 to 30 years, 1,189 male persons were found guilty of indictable crimes of violence against the person in 1948 and, ten years later, in 1958, the figure was 2,471, an increase of 108 per cent. All these figures are for England and Wales, only, excluding Scotland and Ulster.
Another method of comparison is to relate those figures to 100,000 of population, for it is often argued that the population has increased by a wide margin in the decade which I am discussing and that the figures are, therefore, inaccurate unless that increase is taken into account. After adjusting the figures to a basis of 100,000 heads of population, the increase in the same group of crimes was 264 per cent. for the age group under 17,494 per cent. nearly six times as many, for the age group 17 to 21, and for the age group over 21 and under 30 an increase of 143 per cent.
It would be fair for an hon. Member of the Opposition to ask me the source of those figures. It is the Home Secretary himself who briefed me very fully with figures, set out in this form, at my request, in order that I could broadcast on the B.B.C. on this topic in a programme answering questions from a wide variety of people experienced in penal reform.

Sir G. Benson: Will the hon. Member relate those figures to corporal punishment? He has been quoting the figures for crimes of violence, but there was only one crime of violence which was previously floggable and that was robbery with violence. Other crimes of violence were not floggable. If he will analyse his figures, he will find that it is the crimes of violence which were not floggable which have increased in the last few years more rapidly than the crime of violence which was floggable.

Mr. Nabarro: The hon. Member is a little more impetuous than he usually is. If he will allow me to continue my speech, he will find that I was about to deal with those points.
I am establishing what I consider to be one correct basis, that is, a statistical basis. I consider that I am making a correct comparison taking the date immediately before the abolition of corporal punishment for crimes of violence and ten years later. It is often argued by penal reformers that one must not take a period of less than ten years. I am taking exactly ten years and I am using the figures of the Home Secretary which must be regarded as indisputable.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. R. A. Butler): Will my hon. Friend relate his statistics to the type of offence for which flogging was regarded as a deterrent?

Mr. Nabarro: These are crimes of violence against the person.

Sir G. Benson: They were not floggable.

Mr. Nabarro: On the contrary, the new Clause contains the words:
crimes of violence for whatever purpose committed.
What I am saying is that before corporal punishment was abolished by the Criminal Justice Act, 1948, it was applicable only to robbery with violence, but the figures I have quoted are figures from the Home Office for all crimes of violence against the person.
I am seeking properly to establish how those crimes of violence against the person have increased over a period of ten years. I maintain that I have conclusively established that there has been a huge increase in crimes of violence against the person. The new Clause requires that after a first chance has been given to an offender corporal punishment shall be available on a second crime of violence against the person being committed by the same male individual. It is in the context of the new Clause that the House should consider these figures.
I want now to add to what has been said about the volume and spread of support for the measure contained in the new Clause. I quote from the Economist of 26th March, 1960:
Last Monday, the News Chronicle Gallup poll made the depressing revelation that 78 per cent. of the people of Britain want a return of corporal punishment. Support was lowest among the upper class (69 per cent.) slightly higher among the middle class (75

per cent.) and highest of all among the working class (79 per cent.).
However the Economist sought to categorise those matters, it is indisputable that approximately four out of five of the general public believe that some sort of severe action, in addition to the action at present available under the law, should be taken in respect of crimes of violence and in a judicial sense.
At each level of our judicial system there is ample and strong support for the plea being made by my hon. Friends and myself. I quote two extracts, the first by a London magistrate of very long experience, and the second by the Lord Chief Justice. The London magistrate is Mr. J. P. Eddy, Q.C., who, in the Daily Telegraph, on 28th November, 1966, wrote:
But a long experience of penal practice, including visits to many prisons at home and abroad, has satisfied me that there is a hard core of criminals who are not interested in reformative treatment, and will resume their evil ways as soon as they have the opportunity.
It seems to me utterly wrong when one of these offenders is brought before an Assize judge and he is convinced, all other methods having failed, that corporal punishment is the only appropriate treatment, that we should deny him the right to order it.
My own view is that the mere existence of the punishment, though it may be imposed only in rare cases, would be a real deterrent
Mr. Eddy is a London magistrate of more than a quarter of a century's experience in the London courts.
I add to that the view, though it may have been widely read by hon. Members, of the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Parker, as reported in the Daily Mirror on 25th April, 1960:
Lord Parker made the plea on Saturday at the conference of the National Association of Probation Officers, at Margate, Kent.
He said that he did not favour the reintroduction of flogging, but he did think that corporal punishment should be reintroduced in the form of birching or caning.
If this was administered only after a court warning, and was limited to people, under twenty-one, he said, it would go a long way to meet his point of view.
Those words of Lord Parker, the Lord Chief Justice, are precisely the words of the new Clause save only that the new Clause is a good deal more temperate and liberal than the Lord Chief Justice in that it allows a man found guilty of a crime of violence against the person a first chance, and corporal punishment


would be ordered only for a second offence.
For all those reasons, which, I think, are valid and widely supported, I believe that a large percentage of hon. Members today will support the new Clause. It might not be a majority. I am not concerned with that. I am not an indiscriminate flogger. I believe in penal reform. I believe that the Home Secretary's general purposes and policies in this context are correct—stern borstal treatment, and even sterner detention centre treatment. I would have detention centre treatment closely analogous to "glasshouse" treatment in the Army—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Wilkins) is muttering. Perhaps he has not been in a "glasshouse."

Mr. W. A. Wilkins: No, I have not.

Mr. Nabarro: Nor have I. I managed to escape committing Army crimes to that extent, but I have seen at close quarters the reformative effect of "glasshouse" treatment. The only difference is that in a civil case I would pay a man a small sum of money for his labours, while undergoing "glasshouse" treatment.
I support the Home Secretary in his policy of detention centres, but, as Mr. Eddy said, there is a hard core of grave offenders who commit these hideous crimes of violence, which is unreformative and I believe that they would greatly benefit from the type of treatment outlined in the new Clause.

Mr. Julian Snow: I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman. I appreciate that he has been speaking entirely in the context of the situation as it appears to be in the United Kingdom, but, because of the thoroughness which he applies to any question, has he considered the fact that it appears to be almost a world-wide characteristic of the post-war period that there has been this upsurge in crimes of violence? When I say world-wide, I mean in countries strictly comparable with this country from the point of view of sophistication. Should we not consider whether there are other factors which might lead to a conclusion as to the best form of punishment?

Mr. Nabarro: I came prepared to answer the hon. Gentleman's intervention. If he read, as I did, the Daily Mirror of 9th August, 1960, he will have found the most interesting article "Teenage Hoodlums" on the crime page, by Tom Tullett. He says:
The world-wide increase in juvenile crime is the major item on the agenda of the United Nations Congress on crime which opened in London yesterday.
Crime experts from eighty-six countries are discussing the nuisance we in Britain call Teddy Boys and Girls.
In Germany they are called Halbstarke (half-matured); in France, Blousons-noirs (black-jackets); in Australia, the boys are known as Bodgies and the girls Widgies.
This is certainly a world-wide manifestation, but every country must try to find its own solution. Britain has special circumstances. I am asking only that this extreme sanction be applied on a second offence to deal with the otherwise unreformative hard core. I believe that the hide of the thug is tender and receptive. A policy of whack the thug should be our policy, and I believe that it would inflict a sharp and salutary lesson.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. R. T. Paget: Will the hon. Gentleman deal with these two points? Throughout the world the younger generation is finding itself with a good deal more money in its pockets, and it is behaving in this way. When I was young, the young people who had money in their pockets tended to be the undergraduates. Did not the undergraduates in my day behave like far bigger hooligans than the Teddy boys of today? Secondly, the hon. Gentleman says that he has not been in a "glasshouse". I do not know whether he has been flogged. Many of the hon. Members sitting round the hon. Gentleman have been frequently, with both cane and birch.

Mr. Nabarro: Judicially?

Mr. Paget: No. Perhaps not judicially, but by the authorities of one's school. As far as I was concerned—and I think that this applied to many others—I would have entirely lost my self-respect if I had allowed beatings to make me desist from crime.

Mr. Nabarro: I am not in a position to comment on the habits and behaviour of undergraduates in pre-war years. I


was not an undergraduate. I was doing something which I thought at the time was much more worth while.

Mr. Paget: Quite right.

Mr. Nabarro: I recognise the special difficulties associated with what is commonly called judicial beating. I am the father of four young children under 15. I do not suppose that I have ever struck the children more than giving them a cuff round the ear.

Mr. Snow: Very dangerous.

Mr. Nabarro: Whatever is the normal parental habit in this context, most parents at some time believe that a child has to be sternly reproved, and that is properly done, in a parental sense. The judicial problem is different. I do not think that it is proper for the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) to draw attention to the behaviour of undergraduates who misbehaved themselves in pre-war years when they ought to have been working, within the context of the new Clause, which is sincere and genuine in the belief of those who support it, and is applied only to an unreformative hardcore of dangerous and violent young male criminals.

Sir Douglas Glover: Is my hon. Friend suggesting that the hard core of dangerous criminals will be reformed by getting six of the best with the cane?

Mr. Nabarro: This is a matter of opinion. I quoted the opinion of the Lord Chief Justice. I quoted the opinion of an experienced London magistrate. I saw my hon. Friend fast asleep before the new Clause was moved. He must have been asleep, also, during the early part of my speech. I probably woke him up. I made it clear that the methods described in the new Clause are only some of several reformative methods which would be employed in this context.
In the matter of crimes of violence against the person I believe that the present law favours the brute and ignores the victim. That condition is intolerable to our society which is 99·99 per cent. law-abiding. The 0·01 per cent. which is not law-abiding would fall within the ambit of the new Clause—that is all it is; it is the second offender and more, who ought to be

dealt with severely, and the emphasis ought to be on over-severity rather than on timidity in view of the overwhelming general interest of the 99·99 per cent. of law-abiding citizens in our community.

Mr. Leslie Hale: I have not followed the figures of the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) in detail, but he seems to have concluded his speech by saying that he is proposing the reintroduction of corporal punishment for so limited a number of criminals that it would seldom be applied and never in the right cases.
I always listen with attention to the hon. Member for Ayr (Sir T. Moore) when he makes his repetitive speech. I usually listen to the hon. Gentleman with somewhat similar affection as I do when I hear Stanley Holloway as Scrooge referring to the same sort of sentiments and with much the same accent and also using much the same historical observations. I know that the hon. Gentleman enjoys a good deal of affection in the House and, therefore, I do not propose to follow to their legitimate conclusion some of his excursions into the question of flagellation. Such a discussion could be followed perhaps more in detail and more effectively in the French Chamber of Deputies where a number of members have come under the jurisdiction of the law because of their affection for this particular room in the public brothels which used to exist there and which I am told by some very sincere social reformers they would like to see back again. But in the whole of the history of penal reform, from the Marquis de Sade to Mussolini, one does not see these names quoted with exaggerated respect.
The hon. Gentleman rather supported Mussolini at the time of the jackboot and the castor oil and the other remedial actions taken to clear Italians of socialism. But I do not want to pursue this matter; I hope that we are going to have a talk on penal reform. I think that the important but irrelevant figures which the hon. Member for Kidderminster produced on this occasion are of importance in a discussion on penal reform. I might be tempted to remark on the philosophy as to whether an advocacy of violence by the Government might induce youngsters


to believe that violence has more ethical validity than has the New Testament to which the hon. Member for Ayr made an infelicitous reference. I speak reluctantly as an agnostic—

Mr. Nabarro: The hon. Gentleman used the word "irrelevant". I quoted a ten-year comparison of figures of crimes of violence against the person up to the age of 21, which showed an increase in these crimes. As the proposed new Clause refers to crimes of violence against the person, however committed, how can these figures possibly be irrelevant?

Mr. Hale: The hon. Gentleman said this before in precisely the same terms in reply to an intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Snow) and at that stage the Home Secretary made a similar interjection which appeared to express the point of view which I expressed. Maybe I am wrong; maybe the Home Secretary is wrong; maybe the hon. Member for Kidderminster is right. But if one takes the law of averages, I think that the hon. Member for Kidderminster is wrong again.

Mr. Nabarro: The figures I quoted are typed on Home Office paper and were supplied to me by the Home Secretary. I read out precise extracts of that document. Surely, therefore, it is ridiculous to say that the figures are wrong. The hon. Gentleman may not think that they are applicable, but they cannot be wrong.

Mr. Hale: I did not say that they were wrong. I said that they were accurate, even though supplied by the Home Office, and that they represented a state of affairs which we all deplore and a state of affairs which is much worse in most other countries of what is called the Free World. The United States, of course, has a desperate and terribly unhappy problem of gang life among youngsters, and some of the crimes committed there have been so terrible and purposeless that all of those who take the subject seriously realise that in penal reform there is no certainty. Figures rarely prove anything. But all who look at the cases in the United States know that there is no human, logical explanation for them except a sort of curious contagion, a curious inverted virtue, because among these gangs of brutal thugs

committing wicked and brutal crimes there is an esprit de corps and a loyalty to the gang which is frightening.
I speak as a reluctant agnostic and I rarely quote theological matters except with humility. The hon. Member for Ayr made a somewhat infelicitous reference to the New Testament. He expressed high approval of the action of our Lord in driving the usurers from the Temple. In that particular test I am with him wholeheartedly, and if the hon. Gentleman wanted to turn the usurers from the housing estates I should welcome his assistance and co-operation and invite him to join the Keep Left group when we would try to drive them from our life. However, I do not think that a relevant—

Mr. T. L. Iremonger: Would that apply to those who sold doves in the temple?

Mr. Hale: I should not have thought so.

Mr. Iremonger: Why differentiate?

Mr. Hale: The hon. Gentleman did not refer to this particular action, and to discuss it would take us a little outside our terms of reference.
May I come back to the main proposition? One of the really astonishing things about the march of science in these days is the extent to which it establishes the value and the scientific accuracy of the teaching of our Lord as taught in the New Testament. With respect to the hon. Member for Ayr, if he really suggests that our Lord was in favour of corporal punishment then he ignores the whole of the Sermon on the Mount, the theory that one should turn the other cheek and that kindness is best.
The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary will know of a very interesting institution for the treatment of youth in Paris where they have a very severe problem and where they are trying to treat deprived children. When they came to consider what deprived children were they found that the normal terms of deprivation really did not apply. To be deprived of education or a chance in life is really no grievance to a child. When a person reaches the age of 50 he may feel such a grievance, but at the age of 15 he does not. Very often he welcomes it. To be


deprived of food and other basic necessities are the sort of trials to which the poor have submitted for generations and which they have survived. Those interested in the subject found that the one thing of which such children could not be deprived was real affection. If it could be maternal affection, so much the better, but if not they sought affection everywhere, whether it was from the prostitute in the street or from the black marketeer in the club. They wanted affection. They needed something like understanding.

Sir T. Moore: That is exactly what I and my hon. Friends are trying to show for the victims of these cruel brutes.

Mr. Hale: The hon. Gentleman talks about the victims. I can remember over the years when appealing for some misguided youth that I was never thinking of the widow, the person injured, the policeman, though my hon. Friends and I have had some opportunity to do something to deal with the problems of the police. I should not have thought that our record was a bad one.
One of the curious examples comes from the tortuous history of the Evans case. The one man whom we know enjoyed the full advantage and the benefit of corporal punishment was John Reginald Halliday Christie. He was beaten by his deeply religious father who worshipped an angry God and Mr. Gladstone. When he came out of the Forces he was still suffering from a dumbness which I think is called aphonia. I am not sure whether that is the correct term; it was strange to me; but at least he was unable to speak, not because of anything physically wrong with him but because temperamentally he suffered a shock which had deprived him of the will to exercise even his vocal chords.
5.30 p.m.
This man recovered when he saw his father. He used a single word which is not of four letters but which Dr. Johnson described as a term of affection in the Navy, though that was not really correct then and would not be correct today. This man's loathing for his parent was such that he recovered his speech in order to curse him. That is the man who became a sexual pervert. He became the victim of some curious force that we are not able to define and

which we cannot in modern circumstances excuse. We do not yet know how to deal with it. Some day perhaps we shall. However, these things happen.
The hon. Gentleman referred almost obsequiously to the utterances of Her Majesty's judges. On every question of social reform Her Majesty's judges have consistently been wrong during the last 120 years. Sometimes it has been the judges, sometimes the bishops, and sometimes both. I said that I did not wish to be controversial, but I must say in parenthesis that the well-known habit of appointing to the bench unsuccessful Tory M.P.s with large majorities and no incomes has added to the judicial ignorance which is sometimes expressed on social matters.
The hon. Member for Kidderminster made a speech asking society to put the clock back and introduce a punishment which we have previously by Statute reprehended and abolished, asking it to be done for the 0·1 per cent. of cases, and this in the circumstances of a number of Amendments some of which refer only to young people anyhow. On an occasion when a previous Lord Chief Justice said that some lads could do with a jolly good hiding, or words to that effect, the Howard League for Penal Reform—which, I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will agree, has never been one of the large public advertising associations which promulgate theories but has been a research organisation which has sought to ascertain the truth—examined the matter and took statements and published a statement about it. It was found that the youths in question were the sons of a surgeon major in the Army who believed passionately in corporal punishment and had thrashed them brutally for many years.
This is our dilemma—I put it to hon. Members sincerely—in examining the evidence. We know that there is no certitude. We know that on this we are merely expressing opinions which have a basis of emotion and research and no certitude at all. But there is a lot of evidence that corporal punishment produces humiliation and resentment, that it may be the worst thing one can do with even a brave adult criminal and that it certainly is the worst possible thing one can do with the young adolescent whose mind and habits one is trying to form and who one is trying to


train to become a decent member of a healthy society.

Mr. W. F. Deedes: The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) has taken us into rather deep waters, and I do not propose to swim after him. I want to deal with only one point of the new Clause, which I feel I am unable to support.
My concern about it arises from the vagueness of the categories of crime which it is proposed to punish by this means. My hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) used the expression "whack the thug", an expression which invites very general support from a large number of people, but it does not define very exactly the categories of crime that he or many others have in mind as covered by the Clause. Nobody has yet—I very much doubt whether anybody will be able to—produced an agreed list of crimes involving violence for which this Clause will be invoked. The words used are:
convicted of crimes of violence for whatever purpose committed.
If a more exact description can be provided, I shall be interested to hear what it is.
I will quote one example of what I have in mind. We have only recently experienced a new form of outrage, the outrages on British Railways trains last week. That has produced—it is very characteristic of the mood of many people towards corporal punishment—a demand that those found guilty of such offences should receive corporal punishment. As I read the Clause, such crimes would, rightly, be outside the categories covered by it. The point I want to stress is that, although the value of corporal punishment may be arguable, what we cannot possibly have is an eclectic list of offences to be dealt with by corporal punishment which fits the needs of the time.

Mr. Nabarro: My hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) was a junior Minister at the Home Office a number of years ago and will know that the Home Office categorises the crimes to which the Clause purports to refer, and they are crimes of violence against the person. Had I drafted the Clause, I should have put in "against the person" after "crimes of violence". Obviously

the Clause does not cover beating up railway carriages or things of that kind. It is concerned only with crimes of violence against the person. I apologise for the omission.

Mr. Deedes: I am interested to hear my hon. Friend's view, but I am sure he will be the first to admit that his view is not necessarily the view of others who want the restitution of corporal punishment. There are the widest opinions on this as to the offences for which corporal punishment should be restored. It is the lack of clarity on this which gives me my principal doubts about it.
One of the reasons why I feel unable to accept the Clause is that it is not possible to meet the requirements of unprincipled youths with unprincipled methods, and the restitution of corporal punishment without very exact definitions about where it is to be inflicted and for what reason seems to me to be something which none of us can logically support.

Mr. Fitch: The hon. Member for Ayr (Sir T. Moore) seemed to suggest that before the war one could expect crimes of violence because there were so many unemployed, but certainly my knowledge of the unemployed, and unfortunately I was one of them for a short time, did not lead me to that conclusion. The hon. Gentleman seems to suggest that now crimes of violence are undertaken for such reasons as lust, excitement and even enjoyment. But surely lust is something which is as old as man himself? It is not something which has suddenly appeared as a post-war problem. Excitement is as old as the human race. It is not a problem which has suddenly come upon us.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) said, quotations from the Bible, whether the New Testament or the Old Testament, can be found to bolster up whatever view one has, and I thought that the quotations given by the hon. Member for Ayr were very weak indeed. The hon. Member went on to quote a number of people who had written to him—magistrates, probation officers, doctors and lawyers. The same types of people have also written supporting our point of view. I think it is very unwise to base one's arguments on letters written by people who are


often emotionally disturbed about matters such as these.
The hon. Member said that he was supported by 77 per cent. of the population, and the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) said that 80 per cent. of the population were in favour of the reintroduction of corporal punishment. That may be so on the basis of a Gallup poll, but are we to legislate on the basis of a Gallup poll?

Sir T. Moore: The Home Office Advisory Council admitted that there was at least 77 per cent. in favour.

Mr. Fitch: I do not dispute that. The hon. Member knows as well as I do, however, that one can often get the sort of answer one requires by putting a loaded question.
Let us be frank about this. Whether we are in favour of corporal punishment or against it, the emotional reaction of all of us on hearing of a brutal crime is to say, "String him up and flog him". That is the obvious emotional reaction of anybody and it is a natural one.

Mr. Geoffrey Hirst: Speak for yourself.

Mr. Fitch: I am speaking for myself and, I think, for most people. That is the obvious emotional reaction. We must, however, ask ourselves whether it is a rational reaction and whether it will do any good. In other words, would the reintroduction of corporal punishment deter criminals? I do not suggest that the hon. Member for Ayr (Sir T. Moore) and those associated with him are personally interested in flogging; I do not think that they are. They are humane and sincere men who believe that their method would reduce crime. Many of us do not think so. Surely, however, we have it in common that we are all trying to find a way that will reduce crime.
As the hon. Member for Kidderminster said, there has been an increase in juvenile crime. In 1958, there was an increase of 26 per cent. over the previous year, but in 1959 the increase had dropped to 7 per cent. I do not know the figure for 1960, but all this suggests to me that many of the present-day young offenders are those who were born or brought up just before or during the war, when homes were disrupted and there were domestic difficulties. I believe that

as the years go by, we shall see a natural reduction in juvenile crime, because home life has become more settled.
The hon. Member for Kidderminster talked about the letters he had received from his constituents. That was one of the reasons why he felt impelled to speak today. I have received no letters from my constituents in Wigan. When I spoke on this matter in Committee, I received about seven somewhat abusive letters, but they came from places like Eastbourne and Brighton, where I was described, together with my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South-East (Miss Bacon), as a beatnik and many other things. It is entirely wrong to base one's case, either one way or the other, on the emotional reactions of people, and particularly of those who write letters. Something far more solid is needed.
I do not think that there are any practical grounds for reintroducing corporal punishment. I have spoken to six or seven prison governors. They certainly were not in favour of the reintroduction of corporal punishment. Whilst it may deter a certain type of criminal, there is the other type of criminal who rather swanks about this kind of thing. To him, it is a sort of medal and he becomes a martyr among his colleagues. I hope, therefore, that the new Clause will be rejected. As one earlier speaker has said, these problems are apparent in Europe, yet there is no clamour there for the reintroduction of corporal punishment.
Perhaps we are inclined to be a little puritanical in this matter. We feel that if there is a certain amount of vengeance, everything will be all right. I do not say that people consciously believe that, but that is probably behind many of the emotional outbursts. I realise that this is quite natural, but I do not believe that the reintroduction of corporal punishment would solve the problems that confront us.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. James Dance: In supporting the new Clause, I will be brief, because our case has been well made by previous speakers. There are, however, one or two points which I wish to emphasise. First, I do not feel that the Clause goes far enough. I should have liked the young hooligans who have


been destroying railway carriages and cinema seats to be given a sharp reminder on that part of their anatomy which would make them appreciate the comfort of the soft upholstery provided by the unfortunate managements of those concerns; but in this Clause we are not asking to go as far as that.
Whilst I support the views put forward in the Bill by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, in particular concerning the detention centres, I feel that in the same way as, when making up a cricket team, one may have the finest batting side in the world but without bowling and fielding, too, one will not get very far, we must have an alternative to the detention centres, and I consider that this type of corporal punishment would be extremely beneficial.
There is one point which has not been sufficiently stressed. We are always being accused in the Press and by speakers that we want flogging. It is in no way flogging that we want. It is not the "cat". I hope that the Press will publish this. We have never wanted that. What we want is the cane and the birch in certain cases. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not the 'cat'?"] I do not like the "cat", because it is damaging to the skin of the individual, and I do not like that.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: The hon. Member likes the other?

Mr. Dance: No. I have had it several times and it did me good. [HON. MEMBERS: "How?"] It stopped me doing the same thing again, which is exactly what we are aiming to achieve now.

Mr. Paget: I think much too highly of the hon. Member to believe that. On one occasion, he was involved in the same crime as I was. Good heavens, the punishment did not stop him.

Mr. Dance: The hon. and learned Gentleman may have been involved in the same crime. He also lived in a house close to mine, and he used to listen whilst I was receiving my punishment. That, however, is not the point.
I do not believe that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary realises how desperately strong is public feeling about this matter. It is desperately strong.

Only last Saturday, at a "surgery", an old lady came to see me. She was petrified. She asked whether, somehow, I could persuade the local council to put extra lighting in her street as she was terrified of walking home each evening from the bus. This kind of thing is going on right and left. The old lady had reason for her fears. Only the previous year, a woman was battered by one of these hooligans and died.
It is all very well for hon. Members opposite, and hon. Members on this side, to ask whether we know that corporal punishment is a deterrent. I ask them, do we know that it is not a deterrent? Is it not worth giving it a trial and doing something now rather than waiting for sometime in the future when the new detention centre ideas come into being? One could buy a cane and cane a boy tomorrow, but it takes time to build the detention centres.
I agree that we are getting a new form of crime. Not only is there the question of people who rob others and commit violence in that way, but in many cases there is sheer devilment. I am convinced that if some of the youths who went around being beastly, horrible little guttersnipes were given a sharp reminder, they would not do it a second time. I sincerely hope, therefore, that my right hon. Friend will accept the new Clause, although I am afraid that he will not. If he does not, for the first time in my comparatively short career in the House of Commons I will have to vote against the Government.

Mr. V. Yates: I thought that the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Dance) gave an almost complete answer to the argument whether flogging is a deterrent or not. I gathered the impression that he was flogged several times.

Mr. Dance: First, I was never flogged and, secondly, I did not commit that same crime a second time.

Mr. Yates: We considered this question for four-and-a-half hours in Committee and some of the arguments we heard in Committee have been put forward again this afternoon. If flogging is considered as a real deterrent I could never understand why it should be confined to young persons of 17 to 21. If there is so much in this, why is it not included for women?

Sir T. Moore: This Bill deals only with young offenders, not with elderly men like the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. V. Yates) and myself.

Mr. Yates: So far all the argument has been against the young offender. The more I hear the hon. Member for Ayr (Sir T. Moore) the more exasperated I become by the reasons he gives why this Clause should be accepted. He keeps talking about the victim, but there is nothing in this new Clause about the victim. We are asked to support a Clause which has no reference whatever to the victim. How on earth would it assist the victim if we birched or caned someone who had committed a crime? From my association with him I have found the hon. Member for Ayr to be of a kindly disposition and of a Christian nature, yet he cannot see that the real deterrent to crime is a proper scientific understanding and application of penal reform methods which will have a lasting effect.
The Report of the Advisory Council on the Treatment of Offenders, which we had to consider in the Standing Committee when we were discussing corporal punishment, says in paragraph 37:
We have also received considerable evidence that, whereas some offenders would respond to judicial corporal punishment, and suffer no ill-effects from it, others would be significantly harmed.
That is very significant. The paragraph goes on:
In general, the more stable the personality the less harm such punishment would be likely to do, but with such stable personalities other forms of punishment would be likely to prove equally effective.
The Report also says:
those whose personalities are other than normal were said either to act on impulse, without reflecting on the possible consequences, or to have some deep-seated motive for accepting any risk that might be involved. The knowledge that corporal punishment was available as a judicial penalty would therefore not deter them from committing offences, and if they received that punishment they would not profit from it. In many cases they might be permanently harmed, and indeed might commit further offences in consequence of having been beaten. Medical witnesses were agreed that if an individual already had a substantial element of resentment in his make-up, …
One of my hon. Friends referred to this—
judicial corporal punishment would be likely to make it worse; he would tend to become bitter and resentful and therefore more, rather

than less, inclined to behave in an anti-social manner. The aggressive type of adolescent, in particular, often expected violence to be met with violence; if it were, his aggressiveness might become more intractable, but if he were treated by reformative methods there might in due course be a lasting improvement.
That Committee was examining this very important matter very carefully week after week and month after month.
The hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) asked if any of us had been in a "glasshouse." I have visited an Army "glasshouse" and I have found that some of the more drastic and severe forms of punishment have been revised because it was not proved that they acted as a deterrent or a cure. I went to Colchester to examine this matter. Hon. Members opposite may think that longer periods on a diet of bread and water and that kind of punishment might deter, but the more I examine this matter the more I am certain that the idea of using the birch or the cane in the manner suggested by this Clause is not only wrong, but barbarous. It is a barbarous method.
I know that hon. Members opposite sincerely believe this is the right method, but it is taking us back to the Middle Ages. If the infliction of physical pain can be the deterrent which hon. Members opposite believe it to be, then the more physical pain inflicted the better it should be. We could go back to the thumbscrew and everything else if in fact physical torture were the best method. The hon. Member for Bromsgrove said that he did not want the "cat" brought back, but wanted the birch to be used. We should consider what this Committee said about the birch. This is what the hon. Member wants:
A prisoner who is to undergo corporal punishment is strapped to an apparatus, known as a triangle, which is best described as a heavier and more solid form of the easel used to carry a blackboard in a school-room. His feet are strapped to the base of the front legs of the triangle. If the cat is to be administered, his hands are raised above his head and strapped to the upper part of the triangle. If he is birched, he is bent over a pad placed between the front legs of the triangle and his hands are secured by straps attached to the back legs of the triangle.
If it were what the hon. Member for Kidderminster described as cuffing a boy across the ear, it would not be so serious, but this is the method of punishment described in the Report.

Mr. Dance: I do not think the hon. Member quite realises that the reason for this contraption is that in some of the public schools, which some hon. Members opposite despise, a boy who is being punished bends over freely and does not struggle but takes his punishment like a man, whereas thugs do not.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Yates: I am saying that hon. Members should face this question. It is not a case of giving a chap a slap, but of inflicting something which may do permanent harm to him. That is what the expert Committee has said.
I want to refer to another aspect. Hon. Members who are advocating this Clause claim that they are not advocating a retrograde step. I want to call attention to the fact that every country that has abolished birching as a method of punishment has never returned to it. Paragraph 86 on page 26 of the Report on Corporal Punishment states:
… the present demand for the reintroduction of judicial corporal punishment seems to be limited to this country. Other countries which have dispensed with it show no desire to reintroduce it, though many of them are faced with problems similar to those that exist here.
I often wonder why hon. Members think that we should deal with our criminals in a less humane manner than any other country. The Report adds:
The demand for it in this country is often the subject of adverse comment abroad, and its reintroduction would be certain to damage our reputation as the country which has been a pioneer in the use of enlightened methods of penal treatment.
I do not know of any country that imposes birching. If we return to it this will be the outstanding country in this respect. I cannot understand how the hon. Member for Ayr can ask for it. He and I were recently on a delegation to the Soviet Union. I asked a question about this subject. The Russians were rather surprised. They did not know what was meant by the term "flogging".

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Walter Bromley-Davenport: Ha ha!

Mr. Yates: We explained to them what this meant, [Laughter.] Hon. Members are laughing—

Dame Irene Ward: I was a member of that delegation. What did the hon. Member mean by saying that

"we explained"? I certainly never explained.

Mr. Yates: The hon. Lady was present on this delegation and she will recall that when hon. Members were asked whether there was any matter they wished to discuss or ask questions about, I and another hon. Member said that we would like to know something about the Soviet penal code. The hon. Lady evidently was not present when we discussed this matter with the Deputy-Chairman of the Supreme Court in Moscow. When the term "flogging" was explained as an English term for the infliction of physical pain, the Russians said, "This is not included in our penal code." I asked the reason why.

Mr. Hirst: They shoot them.

Mr. Yates: There may be other methods. I am not seeking to justify any or all methods in the Soviet Union.

Mr. S. Silverman: Is it not clear that apart from the political side of the Soviet penal code, which nobody supports, the ordinary criminal penal code is among the most enlightened in the world?

Mr. Yates: I had the pleasure of reading a book which was presented to me giving a full explanation of the methods adopted to deal with various kinds of crime. There has been a considerable change in penal methods in Russia. The Deputy-Chairman of the Supreme Court in Moscow said to me, "We never impose physical pain as a method of punishment." [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] "We do not, because we believe that it lowers the dignity of the individual." [Laughter.] That is true.
Hon. Members opposite can sneer as much as they like, but is there any other country that is embarking upon the reintroduction of what hon. Members want us to reintroduce now? If hon. Members opposite complain against other countries and their methods they must be reasonably certain that our standards are higher and better. I am totally disgusted by this continuous request, without any exercise of intelligence in considering whether or not this infliction of pain is the solution.
I have discussed this matter with prison governors and penal reformers. I discussed it only the other day with a


superintendent of a remand home who said to me, "Mr. Yates, if you reintroduce this kind of punishment you will undo everything that we are trying to do. All our psychiatric and other work is to be thrown away if we are to embark upon this method." I hope, therefore, that the House will treat this Clause as the Committee treated it.
I hope that the House will reject the Clause by an overwhelming majority, not only on grounds of party considerations or ideologies but on the ground of humanity. I do not say that, because we take a different view, and that I and my colleagues necessarily have all the virtue on our side, but I am pleased that in Committee we were absolutely united. There is no demand of this nature within our movement. It is true that there is public opinion, and it is very often ignorant public opinion, in favour of it. People write letters to me and say that I ought to be hanged or ought to be flogged. [An HON. MEMBER: "Hanged."] It is the duty of this Parliament to attempt to lead public opinion and not to pander to the worst and most ignorant elements in it. I hope, therefore, that we shall reject the Clause by an overwhelming majority.

Mr. R. A. Butler: We have had a certain debate on this subject and some good speeches and I now rise to give the point of view of Her Majesty's Government. In doing so, I quite understand that there may be others who wish to express their opinion. It is not because of any wish to stifle discussion that I rise, but I must make it clear that we have a very long Order Paper on the Bill. This is the first major discussion. We have major discussions on other subjects to follow and I hope that if I give in limited scope the view of Her Majesty's Government as reasonably as I can we may, after a suitable interlude for others to express their opinions, be able to proceed with the rest of the Bill.
I have prepared a speech on every one of the new Clauses so I hope that I may be allowed to deliver my speech on this new Clause in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Kirkdale (Mr. N. Pannell). I did not know which of the new Clauses would be called.

Mr. S. Silverman: The speech would have been much the same.

Mr. Butler: Very much the same. This new Clause calls for the corporal punishment of young offenders on second and subsequent conviction and it has been moved in a clear manner by my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Sir T. Moore). A general discussion has been permitted on this and therefore I will address my argument to the general issue.
There has been one similarity in all the speeches, and that is that we have been dealing with judicial corporal punishment. I will now concentrate on the objections to that. The question of corporal punishment has been discussed throughout the ages. Samuel Johnson said in his day:
There is now less flogging in our great schools than formerly but then less is learnt there so that what the boys get at one end they lose at the other.
It would be possible to make all sorts of deductions from this statement. The first, which would greatly annoy my hon. Friends, is that flogging appears to have been on the decline in the time of Dr. Johnson. I will not pursue that. The second is that it is beneficial to learning, which no doubt will appeal to certain of my hon. Friends. Again, I must stress that it was not judicial flogging to which Dr. Johnson was referring. Many of us have less difficulty, as I have made clear in public statements and at conferences, with a personal relationship in beating with the cane or otherwise performed by a parent or schoolmaster in which there is a personal relationship and where there is no delay. It is quite a different question from judicial beating or flogging, or whatever one likes to calls it, to which I will now address my remarks. That difference will come out clearly in the course of our discussions on the Bill.
I should like to say to my hon. Friends who have spoken hitherto that I deeply respect the conviction which is apparent in many of their speeches. My hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Dance) referred to a visit by one of his constituents at what he described as a "surgery". There is no doubt that he did not exaggerate when he said that there is anxiety in the country about the present state of crime. The only difference of opinion is as to what is the best method of dealing with it, which I shall deal with in the course of my speech.
I respect this conviction. I respect the figures given. I do not question the figures given in the Advisory Council's Report on the extent of public opinion by straw votes on this subject. I do not question the figures given by my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr. What I question is whether this type of flogging is the right way to deal with the crime wave from which we are suffering.
Before dealing with that I shall make one or two other small excursions into the history of this. I was reading the autobiography of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's favourite author, namely, Anthony Trollope. He refers to his youthful experience and to one of his teachers in these rather attractive words:
He must have known me had he seen me as he was wont to see me for he was in the habit of flogging me constantly. Perhaps he did not recognise me by my face.
I use that only as a small illustration from the works of Trollope to show that it would be a pity if any of us concentrated solely on this subject and got obsessed by it. I realise that many of my hon. Friends who put this forward as a solution think of it very frequently as the sole solution. I think it is a lesson to us here in the House not to take this as the sole solution of the crime problem. Secondly, I think it is most important not to concentrate the whole of our discussion on the Bill on this one subject, because there is a great deal else in the Bill which must also be discussed.
I will now address myself to the main objections felt by the Government to judicial corporal punishment. I will put it as shortly as I can, because the speeches have been made so often before. Two Reports—the Cadogan Report and the Report of the Advisory Council on the Treatment of Offenders—have shown up the very real difficulties which exist. They have, in particular, shown up what an immense change such a proposal as we are discussing today would mean in the law. The Government agree with the result of both these inquiries. We do not believe that the country can go back. While I do not want to offend my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr by referring to paragraph 85 of the Report, which says that we should be putting the clock

back 100 years, I want to quote from paragraph 4—the initial part of the Report—which says:
At no time since 1861 has corporal punishment been available as a judicial penalty for the offences for which its reintroduction appears now to be particularly desired, namely, all crimes of violence and sexual offences.
I must honestly say that, whatever are our views of penal reform, I am absolutely convinced that flogging is the wrong way to deal with sexual offences. This is proved by all the doctors and medical people, and I think it undesirable in itself.
6.15 p.m.
Looking at the general situation, we see that, in fact, the new Clause is fundamental and would be going back. I do not believe it would provide the right remedy. I would have more reliance on this method if there were no alternative methods. The whole object of the Bill is to provide alternative methods. In Committee this was brought out especially dramatically with reference to the views of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, who is sitting beside me. He originally advocated this form of punishment in 1948 so as to avoid sending young people to prison. My right hon. and learned Friend said on Second Reading:
When the Bill's provisions come into effect, it will mean that young offenders will not ordinarily be sent to prison, and so the main argument which I advanced in 1948 for the retention of some form of judicial corporal punishment falls to the ground."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th November, 1960; Vol. 630, c. 680.]
That is undoubtedly the case, because the object of the Bill is to put up a variety of different schemes for the purpose of dealing with young offenders, and dealing with them in the manner which we think is most effective.
In this connection I think it is only right to refer to detention centres. The House must be satisfied that there are adequate detention centres and that the régime in them is strict and suitable for dealing with young offenders. If the House feels that, even those who most conscientiously are concerned with crime, as so many hon. Members are, would be right to support the provisions of the Bill and not revert to corporal punishment, which I do not think judicially administered would be effective.
First, there have been rumours that the régime in detention centres has


weakened. I have made it my business since these rumours got about to inquire again from the Prison Commissioners on this subject. I am assured by them, and I know it from my own experience of visiting detention centres, that there is no intention whatever of not having the strictest possible régime for young people at detention centres. The time spent in them will not be long. They are manned, if I may call it that, by the most excellent governors, many of whom I have met personally. I rely absolutely on the régime in detention centres to be effective and strict.
Secondly, will there be enough detention centres? I am speaking in the presence of the author of the 1948 Bill. I think it quite possible to say that greater progress should have been made since that date in building detention centres, and in so far as we have responsibility I accept responsibility. When we started to consider the Bill there were only a few detention centres. By 10th April of this year we had seven detention centres, and the last three have been opened since the Second Reading of the Bill. That indicates that we have on purpose been making a particular drive in our building programme for the prisons. Aylesbury opened in January, Medomsley in February, and New Hall on 10th April. All except Medomsley and, of course, New Hall, are already full to their capacity.
We now plan six more centres, two of which will be opened this year and the rest in the year after, leaving only one centre for the year after that, making thirteen in all, which is one more than was originally promised. Therefore, we are running broadly up to schedule. We have a régime in the detention centres upon which I think we can rely. I make the claim, which I think magistrates will find to be correct, that in the end, when we have finished our programme—and already up to a certain extent—we shall have enough detention centres to serve the courts and the magistrates in dealing with the vital question of the young offenders.
If I had not made those points I could not have carried several of my hon. Friends with me in supporting the Bill as it stands without the new Clause so sincerely moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford

(Mr. Deedes) for his speech. He questioned the vagueness of the categories of crime put forward in the new Clause, and I know full well that he has had doubts about the nature of detention centres. I hope that he and many others like him will feel it right to support the Bill as it stands and not the new Clause.
I hope that I have gone some way to convince hon. Members that the reintroduction of corporal punishment is not desirable on general grounds. We consider, in fact, that its reintroduction would be justified only if there were a reasonable assurance that it would reduce crime. The Advisory Council has written a very sensible Report on this matter, and if we look at paragraph 46 we find—and this is the answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro)—that the Council used the statistics in a way rather different from my hon. Friend.
I do not claim that my hon. Friend used the statistics wrongly. In fact, whilst he was speaking I was underlining the statistics that he was using, which are in Appendix C to this Report, for which the Home Office is responsible, and I purposely made available to my hon. Friend for the programme he undertook the most correct statistics I could.
The first thing to say about the statistics is that the growth of offences of violence against the person in the years 1938 to 1959 should cause every hon. Member most seriously to think. They are extremely serious and are taken as serious by the Administration and, in particular, by myself as Home Secretary, being responsible for law and order.
If we look at Appendix D—the next set of figures—we find reference to robbery and assault with intent to rob, and if we read those figures with the figures after 1948, when flogging was removed, we find that, in fact, these offences do not increase. They drop. It is therefore possible to quote the figures against my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster in exactly the opposite way. If we refer to paragraph 46 of this Report—it is my business to know these Reports by heart—we read:
The number of robberies known to the police increased steadily during and soon after the war from 287 in 1938 to 1,101 in 1948,


despite the fact that in the years 1941–4 … 1946 and 1947 corporal punishment was imposed on adults more often than it had been in the years immediately before the war.
The Council then points out that after 1948, when corporal punishment was taken off, the figures dropped. But what was its conclusion? It was not a smug and complacent conclusion but the one to which I would come myself, which is that we should not regard the available statistics as a basis for any firm conclusions. It is not fair to quote statistics one way or the other, and I shall not do so, but, if we do quote them, those that I have quoted to show that this is not a very good deterrent are just as valuable as the other man's, who quotes them the other way.
So much for the statistics hitherto quoted in the debate generally. The next objection was put in a dramatic way by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. V. Yates). I do not want to follow him into his excursions into Soviet Russia, because I do not think that I could do so very satisfactorily, but he referred to some of the methods mentioned in, I think, page 23 of the Report. When we see the instruments that have to be used for this form of punishment, and when we see that, even with the moderate and modest phrasing of the Amendment with reference to the cane, for juveniles it would result in a not too easy situation, I think we must all agree that this system is repugnant to very many of us. What is described in those pages, which I need not myself describe, is not consistent with the general scheme of penal reform as practised at the present time.
The objections put out by the Council are also equally convincing when it says that if there is to be flogging there should be some personal relationship between the person who is beaten and the person who beats. If there is a personal relationship—and I hesitate to say "warm" personal relationship—the warmer it is the sooner is the punishment forgotten. That comes down to us not only from practise but from history, and happens to be true. I do not think that the method described in the Report will work, and when my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr asks us to perform this, I must remind the House that the Council came to the conclusion that it could not honestly recommend any ser-

vice or person or persons who could themselves carry out this task.
Paragraph 82 of the Report states:
We have been unable to think of any way of overcoming this difficulty. There seems to be no service to whom it would be appropriate or acceptable to give this task, and there are obvious and serious objections to employing people especially to inflict corporal punishment on convicted offenders, even for strictly limited periods.
When my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr suggests that there might be someone like the executioner and, at the same time, says that volunteers could come forward, I do not doubt the spirit in which he puts that forward, but I do regard it as utterly impracticable in dealing with judicial corporal punishment through the courts.
Further objections to corporal punishment arise from the delay that must undoubtedly arise. It does not arise in personal chastisement, but it must arise in anything to do with the courts because there must always be the right of appeal. When we add to that the fact that if we were to revert to this form of punishment our practice would be distinctive in that we should be the only country in the world using it, the arguments for not so doing become indeed very formidable, and I am afraid that the Government cannot accept this new Clause.
As the Minister chiefly responsible for law and order, I understand the anxieties which exist in the country today, especially among women, and more particularly in some of our big cities. It has been particularly dramatically brought to my attention from Manchester, Liverpool, Birmingham and other of our big cities. In my view the proper way to deal with the young offender is as we propose in this Bill. The other way is by a strengthened police force. For the first time in forty years, since the Bessborough Report, the police are having a rise in pay and improvement in conditions, and I am glad to say that recruitment is now developing very satisfactorily.
In order to get their numbers back to something like the cadres that should correspond to the needs of the built-up areas—and in the built-up areas of my own county of Essex the police are woefully short and cannot do their job properly—we must put the reformation and strengthening of the police in the


forefront of our methods of fighting crime. We must see that the courts indulge in the severest possible sentences. Although we cannot interfere with that ourselves as politicians, I have noticed in this Report an insistence that long sentences may become necessary, and longer sentences may be necessary to deal with this trouble. In this Bill we deal only with the young offender. We are not trying to put him into prison, but we are trying to find a special method of dealing with him. If I thought that the method contained in this new Clause would help me I would adopt it, but I do not think that it is consistent with the methods we are using.
I am responsible, as it were, for a great team. My hon. Friend mentioned the probation officers, but, in general, the probation officers at the meeting addressed by the Lord Chief Justice took violent exception to his words, not because they disliked the Lord Chief Justice but because they disliked the method. I have a team to look after, and I have many people in it who are working all out to cure this crime wave.
As I say, if I thought that this suggested method was consistent with their methods I would adopt it, but I do not believe that it is, and it is because I feel that the Bill provides an alternative—an honourable alternative—that I ask my hon. Friends, who think so sincerely on this subject, to work with us in this way, and not against us.

6.30 p.m.

Miss Bacon: I want to make it perfectly clear that I speak from this Box on this Clause for myself alone, because we on this side of the House will have a free vote on this important matter. Nevertheless, knowing most of my hon. Friends as I do, I am certain that a great many of them will vote against the Clause.
I agree with a great deal of what the Home Secretary has just said. Indeed, the speech he has just made, and the speech which I am about to make, are probably as much alike as any two speeches coming from opposite sides of the House ever will be during this Parliament. I want most sincerely to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the stand he has taken in the face of the clamour from some of his hon. Friends.
It has been said that those who are against corporal punishment are moved by sentiment and emotion. I believe that exactly the opposite is true. The emotion seems to come from those who advocate corporal punishment. There is the cry "Flog 'em". Those of us who are against corporal punishment are against it not because of emotion, but because of cold, hard facts. I want to make it perfectly clear that those of us who do not support the new Clause are not more concerned for the criminal than for the victim, as is often alleged. Also, those of us who will vote against the new Clause—I know that there will be many of both sides who will do so—are just as concerned about the increase in crime as those who support the Clause.
The question we have to ask ourselves is: will corporal punishment do any good at all? As my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Sir G. Benson) said, there is no evidence to show that birching and flogging are any greater deterrent than any other method of punishment. There is plenty of evidence to show that they are not. The hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) said that there had been an increase in crimes of violence, but he did not prove anything in his speech. He said that some prisoners did not respond to reformative treatment. That is quite true. The hon. Gentleman did not produce any evidence to show that corporal punishment would make such people respond to reformative treatment. There does not seem to be any evidence to show that people will not resume crime even after corporal punishment.
I shall not quote again the figures for robbery with violence, which the Home Secretary gave. Robbery with violence, the only crime for which there was corporal punishment before the war, has always been a crime which has fluctuated in its incidence over the years, but the fluctuation has never been according to whether there was corporal punishment or not. The fluctuation in robbery with violence has depended upon entirely different causes.
Before the war, it was shown that those who were flogged had a much worse record subsequently than those who were not flogged. Here again, we have a concrete example to show that flogging and birching do not have the effect that some hon. Members feel that they would.
I am still very puzzled about the instance often quoted by the hon. Member for Ayr (Sir T. Moore) when he tells us, quite seriously, about the vote taken inside a boys' borstal to show that the boys there would rather be birched than go to borstal. If that proves anything at all, I should think that it proves that corporal punishment is not a deterrent.
In 1948, corporal punishment for robbery with violence was abolished, but it is significant to note that, by 1948, magistrates were not using the powers that they possessed. Birching for that crime had greatly declined, and it had declined because magistrates realised that it was not such an effective method of punishment as others. The hon. Member for Kidderminster spoke this afternoon about prison warders. Let us suppose that corporal punishment had not been retained for this purpose in the 1948 Act and prison warders had been attacked thereafter. I am perfectly certain that we should have heard many speeches today arguing that the reason was that flogging and birching had been abolished.
It is worth noting that every considered report has come down against corporal punishment. The Cadogan Report of 1938, a Home Office Report in 1951, and the Report of the Advisory Council on the Treatment of Offenders, published only a few months ago, all came to the same view. The membership of the Advisory Council included some very eminent people, people whose names are very well known in matters of penal reform. The view of the Council was unanimous against corporal punishment.
We have been told that some members changed their mind during the sittings of the Council. We have been told that when the Council began its deliberations there were some members who believed that to return to corporal punishment might be beneficial, but that, after having met for several months and considered all the evidence, both oral and written, and being confronted by the facts, they changed their minds so that, by the end of the Council's deliberations, the Report was unanimous.
It is said by some hon. Members opposite that other methods have failed. This is where I criticise the right hon.

Gentleman and his Government for the policy that they have pursued during the past few years. It is not true to say that other methods such as detention centres have failed. Until comparatively recently, these other methods, by and large, have not been tried. The Criminal Justice Act, 1948, introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), envisaged detention centres and remand centres. This afternoon, the Home Secretary told us proudly that we now have seven detention centres, three of which were opened in the last few months. It surely cannot be argued that detention centres have been tried and have failed when we have had only four of them for more than a very short time. The remand centres which were to be of such great benefit are still not in existence. The first one is only now just being built. It is not true that other methods have been tried and have failed. The Home Office and the Government have not pursued such an energetic line in this matter as we hoped that they would.
We who are against corporal punishment are just as concerned as others are at the increase in crime. Sometimes, when we hear of a particularly dastardly crime, we feel, rather like the writers of some of the letters received by the hon. Member for Ayr, "If only we had those people for five minutes, what would we not do?" but, as the Home Secretary has said, we are here discussing judicial corporal punishment. I need not add anything to what he and my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. V. Yates) said about the infliction of some punishment.
The hon. Member for Ayr said that he had had letters from people who said that they would come forward to inflict corporal punishment. Having heard the hon. Member for Ayr speak on this and other subjects during the Committee stage of the Bill, and knowing what his attitude is, I do not believe that he himself could inflict this punishment that he would call upon others to inflict. I am fairly certain that he could not.

Sir T. Moore: My view is that the State must give a lead in this matter, that neither parents nor teachers will fulfil their responsibilities in the matter of punishment if the State is known to


frown on judicial corporal punishment. The atmosphere is wrong. That is the view that I and others hold.

Miss Bacon: That is an interesting comment, but it is not quite on the point I was making. The State, in this context, is not a nebulous body. Some people will have to do it, and I was saying that I was fairly sure that the hon. Member for Ayr could not be one of them.
The hon. Gentleman and others made great play with public opinion. I admit that there is a great section of the public which, on being asked a question and being desired to give an immediate answer, would say, "Yes, let us reintroduce corporal punishment". Like the hon. Gentleman, I have had many letters—perhaps my "fan mail" has not been as great as his—from people who are angry because I have been against birching. The sentiments contained in some of those letters have horrified me greatly. What is public opinion? Is it going round asking a snap question and getting a snap answer from the man in the street? Or is it the kind of informed public opinion which comes from studying this matter?
The News Chronicle conducted a Gallup poll which, as has been said, showed that a considerable proportion of those who were asked the question said that they were in favour of bringing back the birch. But it is significant that in the issue of the News Chronicle in which the results of this Gallup poll was published the editorial columns deplored the result of the Gallup poll. That same day, 21st March, 1960, the editorial columns of the News Chronicle stated:
Today's Gallup poll on corporal and capital punishment is deplorable news.
This was followed by editorials in the Guardian and in The Times. They pointed out what a great deal had to be done to put this problem properly before the people of this country. The Guardian said:
That Parliament was ahead of opinion in this country could previously be surmised, but majorities of this size are disturbing.
The Times said:
What the Gallup poll has demonstrated, and in this it has been of significant social service, is the task of education still facing the reformers. Progress may be more rapid now its dimensions have been made so clear.

Mr. Norman Pannell: I believe that the hon. Lady is reading those letters in The Times which favour her cause.

Miss Bacon: No, I am not.

Mr. Pannell: Has she read the letter which appeared a few days later, under my name?

Miss Bacon: I am not reading letters. That would be quite unfair. What I am reading to show the trend of informed public opinion is leaders from The Times and from the Guardian. I am not quoting letters which have appeared in them.
I can comfort the right hon. Gentleman by saying that I was at a conference of women a short time ago, attended by magistrates, councillors and many mothers, which passed this resolution:
That this Conference views with great alarm the present tendencies among various sections of the public to press for the return of the birch and other forms of corporal punishment. It congratulates the Home Secretary on his firm stand against this outcry and urges that he and the Government resist any attempt to return to this iniquitous form of punishment".
That was a national annual conference of women from all over England, Scotland and Wales.
The increase in juvenile crime cannot be so easily remedied by the reintroduction of the birch. It is something which we have to try to cure along other lines. A recent Report by the Home Office Research Unit, entitled "A Delinquent Generation", showed quite conclusively that children who were aged 4 and 5 during the disturbed war years were the juvenile delinquents of today. The United Nations congress on crime drew attention to the fact that there was much more scope today for young people to get into trouble. It also drew attention to the effect of mass media on crime among young people.
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman when he says that we need more policemen on the beat. If there is one thing that can be proved statistically it is that the one deterrent to crime is the detection rate. When the detection rate is high, crime is low. When the detection rate is low, crime is high. In other words, when people think that they can get away with it, and will not be caught, there is an increase in crime.
I wish to quote from an article by a very eminent doctor which appeared in the Lancet on 26th March. He concludes with these words:
Legislative reform must have a considerable public opinion behind them. Unhappily, it is also true that general agitation has, on occasions in the past, been the mainspring of retrograde and panic measures. To bring back corporal punishment now, despite all the evidence we have, would be to acknowledge that, in some cases at least, motives of revenge must be given priority. It is inconceivable that this could serve the interests of the country.
That I believe to be undoubtedly true.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. N. Pannell: I am grateful for having had the opportunity of hearing the views of 'the hon. Lady the Member for Leeds, South-East (Miss Bacon) and of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary before giving my own. Their speeches showed a great measure of agreement which is very uncommon in our deliberations and debates in the House. I have no desire to flog a dead horse. Many hon. Members may think that this issue is dead as it has been considered by two Committees, one in 1938 and the other recently, which were both unanimously against the reintroduction of corporal punishment. But this issue is not dead. It is very much alive in the country and in my constituency, where there have recently been many cases of assault on innocent old ladies, one of whom was maimed for life.
I am grateful that the opportunity occurs for the views of the people of this country to be expressed on this matter, people who fail to understand the tenderness with which the authorities regard these thugs who inflict pain so thoughtlessly and their indifference for their innocent victims? That is how they look at the matter, and it is a reasonable way to look at it.
I should like to refer briefly to the Cadogan Committee of 1938 and to the conditions in which it sat because it has so often been quoted during the debate and in the proceedings of the Barry Committee. The Cadogan Committee had before it the figures of robbery with violence for the previous sixty years, but even the figures from 1907 to 1935 show that they fell during that period from 139 to 55. The Cadogan Committee, quite reasonably, thought that as the

figures were falling so drastically over the years, despite the lesser application of corporal punishment, it was safe to abolish the penalty altogether.
However, the situation changed dramatically, and when the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) introduced the Criminal Justice Bill in 1948 he was faced with very different figures. They are given in the Barry Committee's Report. In regard to crimes known to the police, which differ somewhat from the figures which I have just given—I am dependent on these official sources—namely, Appendix D of this Report of the Barry Committee, we read that in 1938, the year in which the Cadogan Committee sat, the number of crimes known to the police of robbery with assault and intent to rob was 287. When the right hon. Gentleman introduced the Bill in 1948, the figure had risen to 1,101. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is now 1,900."] Admittedly, the figures had risen, despite the continued application of corporal punishment, and I beg leave to quote the comment which the right hon. Gentleman made on that occasion. He said:
One must hope that, as the war and all its disturbing influences on the mind of our population recede into the past, we shall get back to something more approaching the normal figures of 1938. While there may be many ways in which we shall never get back to the prewar spirit of circumstances, I hope that that may be one of the ways in which we may be able to do so."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th November, 1957; Vol. 444, c. 2133.]
It was clearly indicated in the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman on that occasion, and it was the general understanding of the House in giving assent to the Bill, that the figures which had risen so dramatically since 1938 would, as the influences of war receded, revert to the figures of 1938, but, alas, they did not do so. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has mentioned that the figures fell after the abolition of corporal punishment, but the right hon. Gentleman opposite expected them to fall to 238. Actually, the lowest point to which they fell was 580.

Mr. John Hobson: The remarkable fact was that after 1948, the figures for robbery with violence fell, while the figures for other crimes steadily increased.

Mr. Pannell: I do not want to draw a red herring across the trail by referring


to other matters, and I am dealing with the one crime for which corporal punishment was applicable, and I think it is relevant to do that, as it has been so often quoted against those who are in favour of the reintroduction of corporal punishment. I say that the figures had fallen, but they had not fallen to the level of those of 1938. It was twice the figure in 1953, when it might have been assumed that the effect of the war had receded. The right hon. Gentleman's hopes were not justified. Had there been a continuation of corporal punishment, the figures would have gone down to the 1938 figures, but they were in fact twice that level, and thereafter there was a dramatic increase.

Mr. Scholefield Allen: Mr. Scholefield Allen (Crewe) rose—

Mr. Pannell: I cannot give way until I have finished my argument. In 1959, the figures rose to 1,900, or nearly twice the figure which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned in 1948. Now, we are told that statistics can prove nothing, and that they do not prove that corporal punishment is a deterrent. Surely we are entitled to take these figures, because we have no other basis and no one can judge whether corporal punishment would be a deterrent on someone who has not been before the court. Therefore, we can only judge on the figures of those who have been before the courts, and when we consider the only crime which for practical purposes corporal punishment is applicable we have to face the fact that in the year the Barry Committee sat, that is, in 1938, the figures were half what they were twenty years before. In the thirteen years since corporal punishment was abolished they had nearly doubled, and I think that that is a convincing figure.

Mr. Scholefield Allen: Is the hon. Gentleman aware—and I am speaking in the presence of a former Home Secretary who was in office at that time—of the very great change that took place in the classification of crimes of violence at that time? The present Home Secretary will confirm that. The hon. Gentleman is not comparing like with like. Is he also aware that included in the category of crimes of violence are many crimes which he would not recognise as crimes of violence, as, for instance,

motor manslaughter, which is a crime of violence?

Mr. Pannell: I think the hon. and learned Gentleman has not perhaps studied these figures as closely as I have done. I have not given my own figures but have quoted figures from two Reports, both of which declare against corporal punishment. I cannot do better than quote these sources of reference which influenced those committees in coming to their conclusions.
This Clause is not concerned only with the crime of robbery with violence, for which corporal punishment was applicable. It is concerned with all crimes of violence, and is restricted to those under 21. Although many figures have been quoted to the House today, I am going to beg leave to give a few more.
I have before me figures which I have extracted from the Criminal Statistics, England and Wales, 1959, concerning convictions of males for crimes of violence generally since 1938. I want to draw a contrast between 1938 and 1959 according to age groups. For those under 17, in 1938 there were 110; in 1959, 1,201, or eleven times as many. Of those between the ages of 17 and 21, in 1938 there were 147; in 1959, there were 2,222, or sixteen times as many. When we come to the higher age groups, we find that for those between 21 and 30 the increase was seven and a half times, and for those over 30 three and a half times. Those are the figures, and they show that crimes of violence are far greater among those under 21 than among the higher age groups.
If we go further and take more recent years, making a comparison between 1951 and 1959—less than ten years ago—we find that convictions for crimes of violence of persons under 17 have risen three and a half times and that convictions of those between 17 and 21 have risen five times. That is a dreadful situation. My right hon. Friend, for whom I have the greatest regard and respect, has told us that the measures which he has in mind are likely to deal usefully with that situation. I should very much regret it if my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary were to be put on record as the Home Secretary who presided over the greatest increase in crime which this country has ever


known. While I applaud his reforming zeal I doubt its efficacy.
He has spoken of detention centres, but did not tell us what was the effect of the detention centres that have been in existence for several years. We have had four of them working for several years, and if my right hon. Friend were able to tell me what effect they had had on the crime situation I should be more encouraged to think that, when we had thirteen, the situation would steadily improve, but there is no such evidence. All we know is that, despite the tardy introduction of detention centres and despite the fact that we have had four in being for some years, the figures of juvenile crime have steadily risen.
We have been told so many times in this debate today that we are putting the clock back. If the clock is wrong, if it is fast, is it not sensible to put it back? Have this Government and the Conservative Party ever shrunk in the past from putting the clock back? This Government stopped the clock of nationalisation and reversed it in many respects for the country's good. That may have been called putting the clock back, but it was an effective thing to do.
Then we are told that we should fear the criticism of other countries if we were to be the only country which was retaining corporal punishment. But we are pioneers in this case and should not be inhibited by psychiatrists and emotionalists from carrying out a sensible measure which may have the effect of reducing the present terrible wave of crime. I am convinced that if we were to do so and were proved successful we should find many other countries of Europe immediately following our lead.
7.0 p.m.
I and those who support me in the new Clause feel—perhaps not strongly but most earnestly—that something more is needed than the reformative measures which have been put into force over the years and which are still the main plank in my right hon. Friend's platform. What is there so dreadful in corporal punishment? It is not the rack or the thumbscrew. It is a relatively mild punishment, but it has a deterrent effect and is worthy of being tried.
The new Clause deals with the young, from the age of 17 to 21. It proposes that corporal punishment should be applied only for the second or subsequent offence. It may remove some of the objections to the Clause that was proposed in Committee, because it will enable the reformative measures advocated by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and by many other hon. Members, especially on the opposite side of the House, to be tested. If those measures have been tested and have failed, corporal punishment can be applied. Surely, that is reasonable and logical.
I very much hope that my right hon. Friend will enable the House to have a free vote on this issue. It is a matter that cuts right across party lines. It may be that the feeling on the benches opposite against the reintroduction of corporal punishment is stronger than the feeling on this side. I must, however, say to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary that I and many of my hon. Friends who support me in the new Clause feel so firmly about it that if it is not accepted by the Government, we intend to take it to a Division and to vote in its favour.

Mr. Scholefield Allen: If, on this question, there was to have been a purely party vote I would not have dared to intervene at this stage; but there is not to be a party vote, at least on this side of the House. I cannot help feeling that some hon. Members have still to be persuaded that it would be wrong to pass the Clause. We have had an emotional approach which is not based upon the facts. The facts are contained in a Departmental Committee Report of 1938 and in the recent Report of the Advisory Council on the Treatment of Offienders.
I intervene principally because I have been concerned with crime and juvenile delinquency for nearly forty years and because, for the last fourteen years, I have had the privilege—sometimes, I would almost say, the terror—of dealing with criminals awaiting sentence. Never once in my experience at quarter sessions have I found the lack of the power to order corporal punishment, although—and I ask those who stand for corporal punishment to believe me—I have found very many other defects in our penal system which required remedying.
We have had the gap of detention centres, which have not been available. Many of the ways in which we could deal with the wave of juvenile crime have not been available either to magistrates or to the higher courts. Now, these various methods are coming into operation. The Bill deals with young offenders. It is another method of trying the scientific and proper approach to deal with the crime wave.
I wonder whether the kindly hon. Member for Ayr (Sir T. Moore) has ever sat in a court and seen young people charged with a crime and pleading guilty. A great number of them are mentally defective. Who suggests flogging people of that kind? Many of them have grave physical defects. Most of them come from divided homes, or no homes, or homes that are not fit to live in. There comes before one in the courts a number of poor, pathetic young men—very rarely young women—who have not had the chance in life which many of us have had. One approaches this matter with great humility when life is in one's hands.
I believe, not for emotional reasons, but on the evidence that is available, that flogging and causing these people physical pain is unlikely to redeem them from a life of crime. There are other and more effective methods. Certainly, if corporal punishment were the only available deterrent, I should vote for the Clause, but we have many methods of dealing with juvenile delinquency and we ought to use those before we revert to the method which has been abolished in this country and which does not exist on the Continent of Europe in any country that I know.
Until recently, I was a Representative at the Council of Europe and served on its Legal Committee and on a Committee which was set up to consider juvenile delinquency. We have discussed this matter not merely for hours, but for days. I have visited Vaucresson, near Paris, where, for four years, statistics have been piling up as a result of an investigation into causes of juvenile delinquency and crime. It is a marvellous institution and is doing great work. This country has nothing to compare with it.
That is what we lack. Not until recently have we had a chair of criminology or penology. Our statistics are

lamentably poor. As my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), a former Home Secretary, said, the classification of our statistics constantly changes. We have no real classification. The result is that crimes of all kinds of violence, from slight acts of violence to the person, like striking a man across the face, to a motor cyclist or motorist ploughing a man or woman down on the road, or the savage actions of the thugs of which we have heard from the hon. Member for Ayr, are lumped together.
One thing that the Home Office ought to do—and which, I believe, it is now starting to do—is to undertake research into the statistics and to get the right classifications, so that when we quote them, unlike the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), we know what they mean, what they represent and what they classify. The statistics that the hon. Member quoted do not sustain the lesson that he wants to press home. I assure the hon. Member that the statistics are utterly unreliable.
The statistics are classified in different ways in different towns. Chief constables classify them differently. I get the statistics from the borough of which I happen to 'the recorder and when I compare them with those of other boroughs they do not make comparison. We should have a scientific classification and scientific statistics. Then, we would be able to argue them. France and the United States have much more scientific statistics available, but this country has not got down to the scientific probing of either crime in general or juvenile delinquency in particular.
I ask those who still have an open mind to remember that perhaps those who know more about juvenile delinquency are not the judges, the recorders or the magistrates, but the probation officers. The vast majority of probation officers, over 90 per cent. of them, are against the reintroduction of corporal punishment, and that is because they are in contact with these people.
The new Clause suggests that these young people should be birched at second conviction. Many times in my experience, when I have had a boy to sentence, who has already been under the probation officer and failed to satisfy him, the probation officer has said, "I


believe that there is good in this man. If you will let me have him again I will make another and more determined effort." I am quite sure that, many a time, if I had ordered a flogging, the boy would never have been redeemed.
I remember that in my early days in the City of Liverpool it was a well-known fact that many a juvenile birched by order of the magistrate would go out proudly, stick his fingers in his armpits and say, "Come down the jigger"—that is what they called it—"and I will show you what they have done to me." They were young heroes. They were a type of exhibitionist. We have many of them. I suppose that most Members of Parliament are, to some extent exhibitionists, or they would not be here. However, these young fellows like this kind of thing; they enjoy it; they put up with the pain in order to be young bravadoes.
But there are also many of the other type, physically or mentally defective, or who come from homes which are not homes, from divided homes, and these are the people who, by flogging, would be driven perhaps not only into permanent crime, but into permanent suffering, whose whole constitution would be undermined by it, perhaps to turn their brains. That is the kind of thing which happens when young people feel they have been unjustly treated by society.
I appeal to any hon. Gentleman who really cares about juvenile delinquency not to give way to this clamour for the reintroduction of a method which we abolished in 1948, and which no other country in Europe needs. I can support my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. V. Yates) in saying that we find, when we meet the Representatives at the Council of Europe of other countries, that they really do not understand why we believe that we can flog a man into decency. I am not talking about Russia, but about Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Germany, France and Italy. They believe—and I believe that there is a great deal of evidence to support them—that we flog a man into continued thuggery and delinquency. I believe that if we flog in an attempt to reform these people the exhibitionists will become permanent criminals, and a large number of the others will become permanent invalids.
Our salvation lies—and I stress this whenever I get an opportunity—in better and fully manned police forces, such as we have not had in the City of Blackburn since I have been there, and which very few boroughs in the country have. I do not know whether the Attorney-General can tell us how many police forces are undermanned, but I believe that most of them are to the extent of about 10 per cent. If we could get the necessary additional policemen to make crime detection more certain, that would help solve one part of the problem. I am quite sure that if we had a well-trained and highly paid probation force, that would solve another part of it. It costs a great deal of money to keep one of these young people in a detention centre or in prison. The probation service is cheap at the price, and it is the way of redemption for our young offenders.
I therefore appeal to hon. Gentlemen opposite not to vote on party lines, and to all who are really concerned about the elimination of juvenile delinquency to do ail that they can to see that we have a first-rate probation service and fully manned and fully trained police forces.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Hirst: The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Crewe (Mr. Scholefield Allen) did not do much justice even to his own argument by drawing that very substantial red herring right across the track. No one who thinks that this may be a deterrent has for one minute suggested that the subnormal child is to be beaten. That suggestion is not in the Clause and no one has said that it should be. Incidentally, for that matter, such a child would be hardly suitable to send to a detention centre.
What we are suggesting—and hon. Members must get it quite clear—is that magistrates, the courts, should be given the power to impose sentences of corporal punishment. I understand that the hon. Gentleman is a recorder. I am sorry that I do not know of what town. [HON. MEMBERS: "Blackburn."] I take it that he would have enough regard and respect for those who administer the law, as, indeed, I have, to believe that they would use this power with discretion. That is all we are asking. All we are asking is that they should be given this power.
I must join with my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Kirkdale (Mr. N. Pannell) in his remark that there should be a free vote on this occasion. I really must protest to my right hon. Friend on this matter When I remember that there were certain other matters, about which there were certain feelings of conscience on which a free vote was allowed, I say, that this is a matter on which a free vote should be allowed, and I deprecate very much that there is apparently not to be one. As usual when I feel conviction, the denial of a free vote will not make the slightest bit of difference to me. I shall vote against the Government on this occasion, just the same.
I refer to my right hon. Friend's speech. I am very sorry he is not in his place at the moment. He has been very attentive to the debate, and I do not grudge him a minute or two away; but I am sorry that he is not here, because I must say some rather unpleasant things about him.
First, my right hon. Friend referred to the report of the Advisory Council on the Treatment of Offenders. I have it here, I have read it, and that of the Cadogan Committee, most carefully. I know what the general public thinks. I know what a very large number of my constituents think; and it is rather difficult not to feel that the meeting was not a packed meeting. That is the opinion many people have. I feel that it is a great pity that it was not far more representative than, clearly, it was. A great deal of the Report carries, to my mind, astonishingly little weight. That is as much as I have to say about that Report.
The second thing that my right hon. Friend said was that we cannot put the clock back. I am not suggesting we put the clock back. We are dealing with a different question and with different elements which were born of the so-called criminal class of which Dickens wrote in his wonderful books. We are dealing with different elements today. They are very substantially relatively young men with quite substantial material means, and many of them are just nasty, dirty little cowards.
My right hon. Friend talked about putting the clock back, but my right hon. Friend should have closer contact with the country on this matter. His contact with the country is deplorably out. It is

not we who are putting the clock back. He should take some trouble to know what the feeling of the country is, and he should have much greater regard for it than he has in persisting to refuse to recognise and have regard for the conviction of public opinion in this matter. It is he who is putting the clock back, not we.
My right hon. Friend knows exactly how I feel about this, because I have written him letters and sent him articles which I have contributed to the newspapers.

Sir T. Moore: Very good ones.

Mr. Hirst: I am sorry to be attacking my right hon. Friend when he is out of the Chamber, but he already knows exactly how I feel about this, and he knows, too, that I should have the courage to say the same things about him if he were present. It is he and the Government who are putting the clock back. I have not heard for a long time a more ridiculous statement than his, or one which is so damaging to the general views sincerely held by the greater proportion of the people, and certainly by the enormous majority of the Conservative Party of which, on paper at least, he is a leader.
My right hon. Friend referred to a "variety of schemes". A variety of schemes, heaven help us—57 of them. I have no doubt, like the Heinz varieties. All of them have proved futile and completely ineffective in the end. Now we are to have a whole mass more of these variety of schemes. Some of them are the same old tricks performed with the same dirty old cards, chipped, torn and dilapidated; and a few with cards borrowed from another pack.
Take detention centres. We have had them already. My hon. Friend has pointed out how ineffective they have been. We are to have another dozen. It would be much better were the money spent on the provision of more hospitals rather than detention centres, for what good will they do, unless they are carried out under the type of régime referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro)? He was definite that these detention centres will not work unless they are grim places—

Mr. Scholefield Allen: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hirst: I will when I have finished my sentence—teaching a grim lesson. We should not water them down, as many of our prisons have been watered down. Sometimes, if one cannot obtain a ticket for a performance, the only place to hear the Amadeus Quartet is in Armley Gaol.
Is not it about time we thought of adopting the tactics to which my hon. Friends have referred, and which have been so wrongly taken up by hon. Members opposite? There are other people to consider as well as the poor, darling sinners. Of course, let us try to help them, but we have also a duty to other people—to the mass of the people. There are hundreds of thousands of people who would sleep happier in their beds if they thought that there was to be a trial period of punishment for this new type of crime, to see whether such punishment works or not. Do not let us look backward; let us look forward to a period five years ahead, and wait to see what the position is like then. If, at that time, I am proved wrong, I shall be prepared to eat my words, but at the moment I do not think that I am wrong.
There is, moreover, such a thing as anxiety neurosis, a very nasty thing from which to suffer. None of us would be truly representing our constituents if we did not have that sort of thing in mind. We know perfectly well that it nags at the lives of many people. Were this additional deterrent provided, I think that that danger would be enormously reduced and let me tell everyone the sum of that in human happiness would be enormous. It would outweigh any conceivable measure of failure, if there were any failure, in the policy which I have in mind.

Mr. Scholefield Allen: The hon. Member has been criticising detention centres. May I ask whether he has ever taken the opportunity to visit one?

Mr. Hirst: I know all about detention centres—

Mr. Scholefield Allen: Have you visited one?

Mr. Hirst: I know all about—

Mr. Scholefield Allen: The Home Office will arrange for any Member of

Parliament to visit any detention centre or any prison, and has done so. I am merely asking the hon. Member, who has severely criticised these centres, whether he has ever asked to visit one, or visited a detention centre?

Mr. Hirst: What I said was perfectly clear. I criticised the effectiveness of detention centres. They are completely ineffective—

Mr. Paget: Cannot the hon. Member answer a question?

Mr. Hirst: Of course I can, as well as anybody else—

Hon. Members: Answer it.

Mr. Hirst: The answer is "No". It has nothing to do with the question. Moreover, let me tell hon. Members that I have not the slightest intention of doing so. I am not going to waste my time in that manner. I am arguing that detention centres are proved ineffective and that I do not believe that additional detention centres would prove any more effective. If they are proved to be more effective than the present centres, I shall be extremely interested and I shall want to know why they have suddenly become effective, when, hitherto, detention centres have been completely inefficient.

Mr. Scholefield Allen: Will the hon. Gentleman give way again?

Mr. Hirst: No.
I have referred to certain feelings in the country. I wish to quote from the Telegraph and Argus, which circulates widely in West Yorkshire. On 25th March it reported, in very large headlines which I think, Mr. Speaker, you can see from where you are sitting:
Tip-Off Led to Gang Round-Up. Following a 'tip-off' Bradford Police went last night to Manningham Lane where, the City Court was told today, they found a gang of 30 to 35 youths who, apparently, intended going to Shipley"—
which, as everybody knows, is my constituency.
Pedestrians were jostled into the roadway and manhandled. Ultimately, some of the youths were arrested and when 13 appeared in Court studded belts, a metal cosh, a pepper pot and nails made into a knuckle-duster were shown to the Bench.
On the same day an editorial appeared in this newspaper, which has not previously been in favour of the arguments


which I have supported for a long time. The editorial commenced:
Many will regret, as did the magistrates' chairman Mr. Gilbert Holdsworth, that the Court could not order the birching of the hooligans who ganged up in Manningham Lane …
The editorial concluded:
But while Mr. Butler does not think that the solution to this problem lies in harsher penalties or purely repressive measures which do not lead to reform' many people would like the penalties to be given at least a trial.
Normally, the editor is against my views, but he has realised what I and my hon. Friends have realised for long enough. We now have quite a different element of crime from the type of crime committed in the years before the war. Any comparison with what happened before the war is absolute nonsense. I am asking that that should be the basis of thinking and not this miserable Advisory Council's Report. I am shocked that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary should so lower the standard which he represents as to fall back on such dishwash for his arguments.

Miss Bacon: The hon. Gentleman has quoted a Yorkshire newspaper. Will he quote the editorials in the Conservative Yorkshire Post over the last few months?

Mr. Hirst: I did not happen do do that. I quoted one from the Telegraph and Argus, which is Liberal-owned, and good enough for me.

Mr. Abse: I do not wish to follow the vituperative attack made on the Home Secretary by the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Hirst) because I believe his speech is so weighted with prejudice that it will not commend itself to the House at all. I should like to take what may appear to be a somewhat eccentric view but one which I have formed from such clinical experience as I have had in the last ten years of almost daily dealings with criminals.
I suggest we must always be careful that in holding out a punishment to a criminal we are not attracting the criminal to the crime rather than deterring him. In the early days of my professional life it was most bewildering for me to observe that if one succeeded in obtaining an acquittal for a man who had a long record, one was never thanked for it. On the other hand, if a man were convicted and imprisoned, time and

again one found that he would write a letter of thanks. I have frequently noticed—I have discussed this with many others who perform the same rôle as myself—that when a criminal is convicted and sentenced he will thank the judge. He will stand erect in the dock and express thanks for what is often a long term of imprisonment. But if the same man finds himself acquitted, he will adopt an almost sullen and resentful attitude towards those who successfully defended him.
This curious attitude is one which I have often found, for example, among murderers. Only on one occasion did I find among the murderers I have known a murderer who did not want to be hanged. This may sound extravagant, but, as we all know, 40 per cent. of those who commit murder commit suicide before they are caught. Of those who are charged, a high percentage endeavour to die by attempting suicide. It must be understood that a certain form of punishment—in my view any form of flogging—has a singular attraction for certain elements. It must be understood that we are not dealing with normal people. Normal people would not go on committing crimes or want to spend most of their life in prison. So it is no use applying to them the criteria which we would apply to ourselves.
7.30 p.m.
What happens among a high percentage of criminals, from my own experience, is that they are loaded with neurotic guilt and commit crimes in order to be punished, and if one endeavours to attract them in some forms one is more likely to raise the level of crime than to diminish it. Bluntly, it is my view that hon. Members who are urging a Clause of this character are inciting crime rather than attacking it.
If one thinks this view eccentric, think of what often happens. Every policeman will say that there are a large number of people who when they have committed an offence will immediately go to the police and confess it. There are a large number of criminals who will leave an obvious clue behind in the way of a letter or something else which will clearly reveal their identity, because they are courting disaster and because they are people who are, unfortunately,


mentally ill in this way and loaded with neurotic guilt. It becomes inevitable that we must be careful not to attract them by giving them the punishment they are seeking.
Just as there are criminals who kill in the hope that they may be hanged, so a large number of criminals will commit petty offences so that they may receive punishment, as a result of some vague sense of guilt induced by their early infantile experience.

Mr. Anthony Kershaw: Is not that an argument against any punishment at all?

Mr. Abse: It is the argument of those who believe that by punishing one does not conquer crime and who rather believe that one must use other methods. However, I say that there is a particular danger in the case of hanging or flogging because of this curious attraction these punishments have for some groups.
Clearly, it is not enough merely to say this. Every one of us must face the fact that we axe confronted with an increase in the incidence of crime and must wish to make a contribution so that we can diminish it in some way. I believe it is unfortunate that so much emphasis has been placed upon the detention centre, because I believe that the Home Secretary may well find himself in great difficulties. In the long run the detention centre may fail, and as a consequence we may be urged to try this desperate remedy which has been urged upon us, which I believe is bound to be a failure.
Under the Bill, unfortunately, the aims of the detention centre as it was originally conceived are to be glossed over. As originally conceived, it was a preventive centre. It was intended only for a particular type of lad who was in difficulty. It was intended for those who could be pulled up quickly, those who had not as yet so deteriorated that it was unlikely that, to use a term employed at the time, a short, sharp shock could not bring them back to a better sense of morality. Unfortunately, under the Bill those are not the only people who are now to go into the detention centres. Those who would otherwise be sentenced to six months' imprisonment are now likely to go into a detention centre.
Under the Bill it will be possible to recall people who have been let out of a detention centre if they failed. It will be possible, further, to place inside a detention centre people who have failed to pay a fine. Whereas at the beginning there was a definite idea behind the detention centre in that it was intended for a certain group of people, those who had not so deteriorated as to be irreclaimable by a short sojourn inside a centre, now it is thrown wide open.
I regret very much the implication of what the Home Secretary is saying, that the detention centre is a panacea, because I do not believe it. I do not believe—and I have visited detention centres—that this idea of a brisk régime will really get at those who are not merely committing a peccadillo or are being convicted for one particular offence, but those who are the real problem that we have to face—those whose criminal tendencies are deep-rooted. So I should like to warn the Home Secretary that in his endeavour to contain what I regard as the irrational prejudice in demands like the Clause by the placing of excessive reliance on the detention centre he may as the years go on find himself in increasing difficulties.

Mr. van Straubenzee: Like the hon. Member, I have taken advantage of the opportunity to visit a detention centre. But will there always be room to deal with the very class of person that he has outlined; that is to say, not those who are deep-rooted criminals but those who are much more on the fringe? Is it not precisely for them that the detention centre is so effective?

Mr. Abse: I do not think that the throwing open of the detention centre to all was the original idea. One has only to refer to Dr. Grunhut one of the main exponents of this type of centre and who has done so much to point out the advantages of it. In my view, it was conceived for a different type of person. I believe that the existing detention centres, which are now being rapidly increased, will be disrupted. We shall be bringing back into the detention centres people who are in some cases already institutionalised and will disrupt the whole atmosphere. If it attempts to cater for what it cannot cater for, I believe the detention centre will be a failure.
The question of what suggestion one has to make must then arise. If I believe, as I do, that the roots of crime must be explored, it is natural that I look, as I have indicated when discussing a further Clause, with profound concern at the fact that such a large number of approved schools are lacking in psychiatric advice or psychiatric guidance. I know—I have seen it in this House—that there are a large number of people who try to devalue any psychiatric attempts whatsoever. We should at least give them a trial. It is a popular notion that the opportunities are being given. It is a popular notion that we have such a reforming Home Secretary that great reforms are being achieved. But I cannot accept that point of view when I know that twenty-one out of thirty-three girls' approved schools have no psychiatrists visiting them.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman may not have been out of order on the last occasion when he stated these facts, but I must ask him in this case to address his observations to the matter of introducing corporal punishment for young offenders.

Mr. Abse: I am moving generally, Mr. Speaker, because everybody else has moved very far indeed and has dealt with so many other problems under the umbrella that we were having a general discussion about penal reform. However, I will narrow my argument in accordance with your direction.
I do not think it is an extravagant view to suggest that, since we know that crime starts so early and since we know that violent crimes are committed by men who usually have a long record of violence it would be worth while our examining suggestions such as that made by Dr. Glover, that there should be a screening of the child population. One can attempt to whip people into behaving well or attempt to find those who exhibit some symptom of pre-delinquent behaviour. As every child has a medical examination statutorily three times during his school career and as vocational tests are made for a large number of our children, surely it would not be ridiculous to suggest that we integrated into our school medical service a properly equipped psychiatric service with a sufficient number of psychiatrists. We already have a medical service. Let it have psychiatrists and psychologists,

people, in fact, with the clinical training. Then we might be able to prevent the murder and the violence which the whole House abhors.
This would be an expensive and difficult task, but we shall not counter crime merely by being angry, nor by saying, with great indignation, that these people should be whipped. I realise, Mr. Speaker, that you are being indulgent in allowing me to expand this suggestion. I am urging that we should at least consider the possibilities of tackling this problem by going to the roots of crime.
We get these demands for whipping and flogging, because the Home Office has categorically said in its White Paper that it does not believe that its rôle is to examine the roots of crime or, as it called them,
… the deep-seated causes of crime.
The sensible way is to take advantage of the vast amount of psycho-analytical knowledge which is at our disposal, but is practically untouched—though used in many other countries.
Despite our natural resistance to this type of thing, we should at least try it, otherwise the Home Secretary will for ever be faced with demands, such as this Clause, simply because the other methods which he is using are merely expedients for detaining people, and then letting them out with the same, deep-seated social misbehaviour as they had when they were originally detained.

The Attorney-General (Sir Reginald Manningham-Buller): We have been debating this matter for more than an hour since my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced the Government's views. I agree that it is a very important matter, but I ask my hon. Friends to consider whether we should not proceed soon to a conclusion. I do not intend to repeat the arguments put forward by my right hon. Friend or to repeat his views, and a repetition of the views in favour of corporal punishment perhaps does not serve a very useful purpose. The views on both sides have been very fully and very frankly expressed.
I have listened to many debates about corporal punishment, going back to 1948, and I think that this has been one of the best of the lot. At the same time, I must say that I cannot conceive of any new argument that can be brought forward in favour of the proposal contained in


this Clause. I therefore ask my hon. Friends to consider whether we should not proceed to a conclusion, bearing in mind that both sides of the House, on Second Reading, supported this Bill and that we want to make some progress with the Report stage.

Mr. N. Pannell: Is it the intention that there should be a free vote on this Clause?

The Attorney-General: I will deal with that in a moment. I think that my hon. Friend well knows the position about that.
I speak in a different capacity from that in which I spoke in 1948. As the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) will remember, when he introduced his proposals for the abolition of flogging and birching I spoke in favour of retaining birching.

Dame Irene Ward: Hear, hear. Jolly good.

7.45 p.m.

The Attorney-General: The main reason I did so was because I hoped that the imposition of that kind of sentence in those days would remove the necessity of sending to prison, with its possible contamination. I spoke, with the same sincerity with which I am sure my hon. Friends have spoken today, in favour of corporal punishment.
Now, I say frankly that I am absolutely convinced that it would be wrong to attempt to reintroduce it in any shape or form. We have been asked to try it out, to see how it will work. But we have had experience of how it has worked. It is not something new. We have had experience, and we know from the figures, from our knowledge in the courts, how little use was made of the power when the courts possessed it—how infrequently, how rarely, it was used. There is, I know, a very widespread and general feeling of concern among all sections of the population and among all parties about the present crime wave. It is that feeling of concern and apprehension which, I have no doubt, has led many people sincerely to the conclusion that the right step to take is to reintroduce corporal punishment. But that conclusion does not follow from the premise.
I am sure—and I know that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary agrees

with me—that the most important step we can take in dealing with the crime wave is to reduce the number of those who commit these terrible crimes and avoid detection and apprehension. The best and most effective step in dealing with the crime wave is the one to which he referred, namely, that of getting more police, more policemen on the beat, and improving police methods of detection.
I wonder whether, if this Clause were carried, we should find the courts making any more use of this power than they did immediately before it was abolished. I ask my hon. Friends who take a different view from the one which I now take-taking the same view which I took in 1948—to consider this: it is all very well to say that we should give the courts power to impose a sentence of corporal punishment. Their chief argument in favour of it is its deterrent effect. But the deterrent effect of giving the courts power to impose corporal punishment would not last very long when it was realised that they were not imposing it. That is why I say, in all sincerity, that I do not believe—

Mr. Hirst: How does my right hon. and learned Friend know that it would not be imposed?

The Attorney-General: I do not suppose for one moment that my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Hirst) will agree with me.

Mr. Hirst: I do not.

The Attorney-General: I hold my view as sincerely as he holds his, and I ask for as much consideration for my argument as I have given for the arguments advanced by my hon. Friends. It is not enough, even from their point of view, to say that the courts should be given back the power to inflict corporal punishment unless we could make sure that the courts would use that power. I do not believe that the courts would use it any more than they used it in the years immediately before it was abolished, particularly when we are stressing in this Bill the need for the courts to have reports from probation officers and others about the proper method of treatment of offenders.
I do not believe that this power would be used, and in those circumstances the deterrent effect would be gone completely. I do not believe that this suggestion is the answer. Nor has any


answer been found to the problem of the delay that must occur before the infliction of judicial corporal punishment.
I have, perhaps, spoken more strongly than I had intended when I rose, and I shall not go on because the arguments have been put completely on both sides. We have a great deal of business to do on this Bill, which everyone wants because it will make great improvements and will strengthen the hand of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in dealing with the present crime situation. For that reason, I ask my hon. Friends whether we could not now proceed to a conclusion.
My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Kirkdale (Mr. N. Pannell) knows from what my right hon. Friend said that it is a Government decision not to accept this Clause. That being so, I do not think that he can reasonably expect there to be a free vote on this issue.

Mr. Ede: The hon. Member for Liverpool, Kirkdale (Mr. N. Pannell) quoted what I said in 1947 when I introduced the Bill which ultimately became the Criminal Justice Act, 1948. I hope that he feels as disappointed as I do that the course of public conduct did not follow the lines which most people then expected it to follow. I admit that I am greatly disappointed.
The crime wave has been constantly mentioned, but waves have undulations and there do not appear to have been many undulations in the crime trend in post-war years. Most people hoped that there would be variations and a final downward trend, but that has not been the case. However, that has not been confined to this country, and every civilised country—or every country which claims to be civilised, which may be a rather larger number—has had the same problems.
I welcome what the Home Secretary said. Most of us must realise from our knowledge of the inescapable facts that we are dealing with a very serious situation and I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's promise that the other measures embodied in the Bill will be actively put into operation with as much speed as the supply of men and materials will permit.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will feel that hon. Members opposite, who have spoken with some vehemence

this afternoon, are undoubtedly speaking for a vast mass of uninstructed opinion outside the House—I put it like that deliberately—but let us realise that uninstructed opinion, if voiced long enough and vehemently enough, can become the determining factor in matters of this kind.
The Bill, which only carries on the counter measures proposed in the 1948 Act, without going very much beyond them, will be effective if the right hon. Gentleman implements his pledge this afternoon. What would have been the good in 1948 of proposing to close Dartmoor and two or three other prisons and building others in their place when the demand for men and materials was for other purposes and other buildings?
The right hon. Gentleman has an opportunity, if he will avail himself of it, to carry out his pledge and to deal with this matter on lines which will leave no sense of shame on our civilisation. I should be profoundly disappointed if we were driven by the continuance of the present conduct of a limited and small section of our population to bring back punishments which made no appeal to reform but which relied on vengeance and on a sense of punishment with no hope of reform. I sincerely hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be successful.

Lieut.-Commander S.L.C. Maydon: The right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) has spoken of uninstructed opinion. If by that he means open minds unsullied by untried and uncertain theories, then give me uninstructed opinion every day of the week. We are being asked to accept a great many theories which have not been fully tried and some of which have been going for only four years and some for even less. If we are to be asked against our will to accept such theories, we should have some evidence beforehand of their success, and nothing said today has convinced me that there is any such evidence.

Mr. Paget: Does not the hon. and gallant Gentleman's and my Service give the answer? The Navy flogged for every known offence. It was said that the discipline of the Navy would go if flogging were abolished. It is incomparably better today than it was then.

Lieut-Commander Maydon: The hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) is talking of the days of the cat-o'-nine-tails and keel-hauling, both of which punishments have very properly been dispensed with today. But when I left the Navy methods of corporal punishment were in force which were effective, and the hon. and learned Gentleman knows that as well as I do. I believe that those methods still exist.

Mr. Paget: What are they?

Lieut-Commander Maydon: Caning of boys, as the hon. and learned Gentleman well knows. Perhaps he has never heard of it. It did exist, but I am not certain that it still does.
Much can be argued from statistics. Those who oppose the Clause like to have it both ways. They say that there was corporal punishment before 1948, but that it was ineffective, and they then produce statistics related solely to robbery with violence. When we produce full statistics for all sorts of crimes of violence, they say that corporal punishment applied only to robbery with violence. They cannot have it both ways.
Today it has been argued that with more certain methods of detection all will be well. Nobody would applaud that more than I in the measures taken to increase our police forces and to improve their conditions; but, if detection is to be effective and form an effective deterrent, as a last resort the courts must have power to impose effective sentences. Those who read the daily newspapers, or even the so-called comic papers, know as well as I do that for many years one of the principle butts of the caricaturists has been the juvenile courts. That is a deplorable state of affairs, but if by their own actions the juvenile courts had not put themselves in that perspective in public opinion, the caricatures would not have been drawn and people who read magazines and papers of that sort would not have seen them.

Mr. MacColl: The hon. and gallant Member has made a very wide and sweeping and rather slanderous statement about the workings of our courts. Will he specify in what precise way juvenile courts have deserved to become features of comic strips?

Lieut-Commander Maydon: The only way to support such a contention is to produce a definite case, which I am not prepared to do, but there is a contention that juvenile courts are far too lenient with young offenders who have committed serious offences. Those who study the results of these courts will agree that that is borne out every day.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. MacColl: The hon. and gallant Gentleman says that he is not prepared to produce cases. He has made a categorical statement about justices of the peace who are appointed by the Lord Chancellor to carry out the exercise of justice in this country, as much as judges are. If an hon. Member makes slighting remarks about judges in the House, he is pulled up. It is wrong for the hon. and gallant Gentleman to make gratuitous criticisms about people who are doing unpaid work in the administration of justice—I declare my interest because I am one of them—without any tittle of evidence, or cases or examples of any sort. He should not lend himself to this kind of vulgar sneer. It is unworthy of an hon. Member.

Lieut-Commander Maydon: The hon. Gentleman said that there is no evidence, and, as I have said, I am not prepared to produce any at the moment, but he knows that it is commonly said in the country that there are many cases of young thugs being let off by these courts. He knows that as well as I do. I appreciate his position as one of the magistrates and his trying to defend his fellows and himself in this respect—that is only natural—but he knows that there is this perfectly honest, well-founded and commonly held accusation against the courts. We have the right of free speech. We can criticise our judges or our magistrates if we think that they have not fulfilled their purposes properly.

Mr. R. Gresham Cooke: During our discussions in the Standing Committee the hon. Member for Ayr (Sir T. Moore) quoted a case from Worthing in which a young thug had knocked over and attacked no less than six girls and women in the course of the last few weeks before he was had up. He was put on probation by the magistrates.

Mr. S. Silverman: So what?

Dame Irene Ward: There are many magistrates who feel that part of the system of juvenile courts needs reform.

Mr. MacColl: Mr. MacColl rose—

Lieut.-Commander Maydon: The hon. Gentleman has had a fair say, and I do not think that it would be proper to give way to him further.
There is one new aspect. My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General said that all the arguments had been exhausted. I have sat through the debate from the beginning, and there is one aspect which has not been touched on. Only this morning I read in my newspaper of a cinema which was now apparently employing an ex-Royal Marine commando, who was also alleged to be a judo expert, to protect the cinema. That is one instance, and there are others which do not immediately come to my mind, but there are no doubt cases where people are beginning to take this matter into their own hands, and if that is happening it is a dangerous state of affairs.
One has only to discuss these matters in one's constituency, in the pubs or in the clubs, and people come up and say: "By Jove! If only I could get my hands on the young so-and-so's". If public opinion is getting to that state it is dangerous, and I think that the Government should take account of it and take measures to prevent people from taking these matters into their own hands.
That is the point I particularly wanted to make, because it is a new one which has not previously been mentioned. It is an important point which, together with the many others put forward during the debate, leads me to support the new Clause. I hope that many hon. Members on both sides will go into the Division Lobby to support the new Clause.

Dame Irene Ward: As a magistrate I listened with great respect and interest to what my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said about the new Clause, which I intend to support in the Division Lobby. I was disappointed in the approach of my right hon. Friend, because he discussed the new Clause as if it were being put forward as an alternative to all the other provisions in the Criminal Justice Bill.
I did not serve on the Standing Committee and, therefore, did not hear all the arguments put forward, but I do not for a moment think that it is the intention of those who support the Clause to put it forward as an alternative. I listened very carefully to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and he did not put forward any argument to suggest why this general power—which after all is all that we are asking for—should not also be included in the Bill to add to the other provisions included in it.
That was regrettable, because it is of tremendous importance for magistrates and for the courts to have as wide a variety of powers as possible to try to deal with the cases which come before them as humanely, as reasonably and as much in the general interest of the public as possible.
When my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General intervened in the debate I listened carefully to what he said. I am rather tired of statistics. I take a much more realistic view of the duties of magistrates and what we ought to do to try to reduce juvenile crime, and, indeed, crime of all kinds. I was astounded to hear him announce that if this general power were given to the courts and the magistrates they would make no use of it. On what basis can he put forward an argument of that kind?
I think that opinion in the country has altered considerably since the days when magistrates ceased to make use of the powers they had. I do not mind saying in very certain terms that we should not have had such an enormous body of public opinion on our side for the reintroduction of corporal punishment if the country did not feel that Parliament—and I say Parliament advisedly, which means both sides of the House—had not "gone soft" on the treatment of young thugs and young offenders.
It is not wise to argue about the results of Gallup polls of one kind or another. The public does not know all the arguments for and against, nor does it know the limited powers of magistrates. If it did, it would certainly support wider powers being given to magistrates.
People who want a peaceful, well-conducted country with a vast reduction in juvenile crime feel that Parliament, and perhaps magistrates, are failing to


give them what they want and demand that the courts should have the widest possible powers and that we should be firm, resolute and strong.
One or two hon. Members have used arguments which I think are very right in support of this Clause. My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Hirst) asked about the effect of the detention centres. I think it is true to say that my right hon. Friend did not give any evidence to show why he felt that the increase in the number of detention centres would be the answer to this problem. If my right hon. Friend wants to know a little of what I feel in my heart I will tell him, speaking as a magistrate—though not, I am afraid, able to act as a magistrate very often because of my attendance in Parliament—that there are things to which we as magistrates would be very glad to see him give attention.

Mr. A. E. Hunter: What evidence has the hon. Lady that the cat-o'-nine-tails or birching would prevent juvenile crime?

Dame Irene Ward: I am not talking about the cat-o'-nine-tails. I have no intention of talking about the cat-o'-nine-tails and neither am I asking for its reintroduction. I am merely asking for some general powers to be given to magistrates.
I agree very much with what was said about subnormal people who come before the bench. That is a very difficult problem. There is a great deal more which could be done by the Government to try to deal with this aspect of a difficult situation, but that does not detract from my view that when a young offender coming before the bench shows all the signs of being vitally alive but just out of tune with life, magistrates should have the power to order the birch if they feel so inclined.
I am proud, as everyone is, of our summary courts of jurisdiction. I am very proud of the part which magistrates play. I do not think my right hon. Friend did very much in his speech to support magistrates who administer justice through the summary courts of jurisdiction. Why should he assume that magistrates—who are appointed because they have something, I hope, to offer to

the administration of justice—if they were given this general power, would use it unwisely?
I repeat that if my right hon. Friend wants a few suggestions about what would help magistrates—which I do not find in the Bill—I can give him a very wide variety. We are still waiting for a reconsideration of the fines we are able to impose on those who come before courts of summary jurisdiction. It has taken years to get a reassessment under modern conditions. The Home Office works far too slowly in this matter. If my right hon. Friend thinks that detention centres are the answer, he should have got on with them more quickly.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I got on with them as soon as I assumed office. I could not move more quickly than that.

Dame Irene Ward: I am not blaming my right hon. Friend purposely, but he was also a member of Her Majesty's Government at the time when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer. I do not want to be too unkind, but I wonder whether when his predecessor brought up the question of detention centres he, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, was as enthusiastic about them as he is today. Does he want to answer that?
I do not want to be too unkind, but when my right hon. Friend speaks about the policeman on the beat I am bound to say to him, what a battle we have had. Perhaps he was involved in that battle at the Home Office and not as Chancellor of the Exchequer, but what a battle we had to get fair treatment for the police. What a battle we have had to get a slight move forward in regard to probation officers. I do not think the position is at all satisfactory today. What a battle we have had—and have not yet won—for adequate pensions for retired policemen and their widows. That is all bound up with the recruitment of an adequate police force, satisfied and happy to do the job.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) apparently rejected the Clause because he did not think it very well drawn. That may well be so, but if my right hon. Friend had felt that the cause was right and that general power should be given to magistrates—as I think it should be given—with all the legal advice he has in the Home


Office he could have brought forward a Clause to deal with the situation, perhaps in better legal phraseology than the Clause in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Sir T. Moore) and those who support him.
8.15 p.m.
I do not think there could be any real objection to this general power being given to magistrates. To reject this out of hand is not really doing justice to magistrates who try to serve my right hon. Friend so well and adequately. I do not mind about statistics. If we do our homework we can make statistics answer any case we like to put forward. I sit on a bench with a very remarkable body of magistrates and we have most difficult cases to deal with. For all I know, the hon. Lady the Member for Leeds, South-East (Miss Bacon) may be a magistrate.
We have many difficult cases before us and occasionally, although not very often, they arise out of the problem of broken homes and the unhappy past of the people who come before us. If my right hon. Friend wants to do something about statistics which have been bandied about between the two sides of the House, I should like him to look into the statistics related to the many who come before the courts because of their past histories. Then, perhaps, we could get a little more money to help deal with deprived children and some of the difficulties with which we are faced in the shortage of social workers. We might also get a move on with the recommendations of the Young husband Committee. I could suggest many ways in which my right hon. Friend could spend money as Home Secretary before he again becomes Chancellor of the Exchequer.
I think magistrates ought to have this general power. My right hon. Friend ought to have greater confidence in their administration of justice. They know what is going on and they see some of these young people who come before them. I want much wider powers for the bench. It is all very well reforming in the Home Office, but I want these reforms to spread to the magistrates who are on the job. There are a great many more reforms which I could suggest to my right hon. Friend. If he will

have a private talk with me, I shall tell him of some of them.
In the meantime, I have every intention of supporting this Clause. I am not interested in whether there is to be a free vote or not. I have no intention of doing anything but supporting the Clause with my vote in the Lobby.

Mr. MacColl: The hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) seemed to be a little ambivalent about magistrates. She started by supporting the hon. and gallant Member for Wells (Lieut.-Commander Maydon) in his general attack on the competence of magistrates, and she finished by saying that they are such wonderful people that they should be given more power and discretion.

Dame Irene Ward: I appreciate the hon. Member's action in springing to the defence of magistrates, but I did not think that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wells (Lieut.-Commander Maydon) was attacking them. He was talking about the problems of juvenile courts. A great many magistrates feel that to eliminate any fear that those who come before those courts might experience—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."]—we have gone too far in removing the deterrent of the juvenile court.

Mr. MacColl: If I may now utter the second sentence of my speech, I was about to say to the hon. Lady that I suspect that most of the criticisms made of the working of the juvenile courts have been made by those magistrates who have not been honoured by being elected to the panel of juvenile justices.
I do not want to follow the hon. Lady in what I think is really the drawing of a red herring about the magistracy, nor do I want to follow the Home Secretary in the fascinating development of the theory of collective responsibility of cabinet Government, on which I certainly agree with the hon. Lady's comments. I want to confine myself to what I think is the fundamental difficulty about this new Clause and the fundamental confusion about the arguments deployed on corporal punishment both in Committee and on the Floor of the House. It is that protagonists of corporal punishment can never make up their minds whether they regard it as


a severe and frightening penalty or as a quick, easy, rather soft option for the not too seriously delinquent people.
Those two views are present in the two new Clauses on the Order Paper. One is the proposal that corporal punishment should be something one can agree to have as an alternative by the consent of the person concerned. The other view is put forward in the new Clause which we are now discussing. The hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) is a clear believer in corporal punishment as being a very severe, brutal and frightening penalty, because he said that the hide of the thug is tender and receptive. I do not believe that that is true. I do not believe that the hide of the thug is more tender or more receptive than that of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget). If corporal punishment did not prevent my hon. and learned Friend from turning back to the straight and narrow way, I do not think that it will make a thoroughpaced thug turn back to the straight and narrow way. The hon. Member for Kidderminster talked about corporal punishment as embodied in the new Clause as being the extreme penalty.

Mr. Nabarro: Sanction.

Mr. MacColl: I wrote down "penalty" but I will settle for "sanction". The hon. Member regarded it as the last straw for the "hard core" as he terms them, for the people beyond redemption, but that was not the view expressed by the hon. and gallant Member for Wells and one or two hon. Members who had breezy reminiscences of life in the Navy or at Eton and elsewhere where one was regarded as being a "cissy" if one cared about being beaten. The hon. and gallant Member for Wells said that it was a suitable penalty for people who ripped up cinema seats, but those people only do malicious damage anyway and the new Clause does not cover them.
The people covered here are not thugs who make a noise outside a cafe at two o'clock in the morning or thugs who behave like undergraduates inside a cinema. The Clause is supposed to cover only second offenders, the people who have had their chance, the people who are really serious, hard cases, the people whom it is thought the other type of treatment has failed to help.
If we take that view I think that we ought to put no limit to the ferocity of the punishment that we administer. It is really cissy stuff to cut out the cat-o'-nine-tails. After all, if one only canes the violent thugs and one applies only a genteel type of punishment it will have no effect on them. It will have no more effect on them than it did on hon. Members opposite when they were at school. If we are to apply a deterrent punishment we must increase the severity of the punishment. As one fails to apply an effective deterrent one finds before long that one has to introduce the cat o' nine tails and even a few embellishments to it.

Commander Anthony Courtney: I hope that the hon. Member realises that the Cadogan Committee, whose Report is the basis of what we are now discussing, recommended the retention of the cat-o'-nine-tails for the circumstances for which corporal punishment is now allowed, that is, for mutiny in prisons and for physical assault on prison officers.

Mr. MacColl: I would merely recapitulate what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South-East (Miss Bacon)—that, in spite of flogging by the cat-o'-nine-tails, we are all desperately worried by the present state of prison discipline, and that if that punishment had been abolished earlier we should now be faced with a demand for its restoration. This is precisely what I am saying. We shall have to reintroduce the cat-o'-nine-tails if this punishment is to be an effective sanction. We should have to introduce the old-fashioned idea of punishing people more than once, of ordering them to be flogged on several occasions, because any single flogging that a prisoner can stand without dying or without its being stopped by a medical officer is unlikely to be a sufficiently effective deterrent over a long period. If brutality is to be relied upon for the deterrent, it must be made workmanlike and effective and we must not be put off by all this genteel schoolboy stuff.
8.30 p.m.
The hon. Member for Ayr (Sir T. Moore) was quite cynical about it. He said that he did not think that the cat-o'-nine-tails is more painful than the birch. He said that he was, therefore, settling for the birch to mollify public opinion


because he thought that it would be as unpleasant as the cat-o'-nine-tails. Other hon. Members have said that the birch is not flogging. Why is it not flogging if they want to protect the women who are suffering these brutal assaults? If they are going to stick up for the victims, why not flog the criminals?
My answer to that question is that I do not think that it is an effective deterrent, however brutal it is. The fundamental fallacy about the argument for the deterrent based upon severity of punishment is that it assumes that the person receiving the punishment is a rational human being who governs his motives by his experience. As I said in Committee, the difference between the bishop and the hoodlum is that the bishop learns from experience and once having been punished he keeps out of trouble again, whereas the hoodlum goes on and on obtaining more punishment because he lacks the particular quality of mind of being able to say, "I know that this is a stupid thing to do because I shall be punished".
The hon. Member for Tynemouth, with her great experience, told us about the work of magistrates. She has found, as I have, that one of the characteristic features of the delinquent young is that they do not respond to cause and effect. It is no good saying to them, "Surely you realise that if you commit another offence you will be punished for it." It does not work that way, because the minds of delinquents and criminals do not work that way.
That is the only point I want to make. We must make up our minds what we are trying to do. Are we trying to introduce the last fundamental extreme sanction for grave crime? If we are doing that, is it not terrible to think that thugs, people who have committed violent assaults, will not go to prison, because this is an alternative to prison? They will have a single penalty, which will be over in a few minutes, and then they will be let loose on the country, with no protection for society. The people advocating the introduction of corporal punishment are the same people who are talking about protection for the weak and helpless. Yet they will not shut these brutes up. They will let them loose hoping that their theories will work.

Mr. S. Silverman: They will let them loose with a new grudge.

Mr. MacColl: As my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) says, the brutes will be let loose with a chip on their shoulders and a new grudge against society. They will not be shut off away from society. They will be let loose among society immediately, just because a few hon. Members with happy recollections of their days at public school think that after all beating people when they misbehave is all rather jolly fun.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: The answer to the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) is perfectly clear. It is that caning or birching is a deterrent. I was amazed to hear the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Sir G. Benson) tell us that, in his view, birching and caning were a deterrent, because in Committee many hon. Members opposite, including, I think, the hon. Member for Chesterfield, said that it did not matter about reintroducing corporal punishment because it was not a deterrent. This shows how public opinion on the other side of the House is being educated. Hon. Members opposite now admit that birching and caning are deterrents.

Sir G. Benson: I do not deny that birching and caning are deterrents. All forms of unpleasantness can be deterrents. The question is whether caning and birching are a more effective deterrent than other forms of deterrent and whether it is worth while reintroducing corporal punishment. My opinion is that it is not.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: My hon. Friends and I take the view that it is a deterrent and that it will be an additional deterrent alongside the detention centres and other things that we are introducing.
I shall not run over all the points which have been raised tonight, but I must take up two or three things which have been said in the debate. It has been freely said that the fear of detection is a great deterrent. However, one of the difficulties at the moment is that the fear of detection is not a deterrent, because magistrates have been weak and soft and many young thugs think that they will be bound over. If Parliament, on this occasion, will give magistrates a lead, and show them that we mean


business in fighting crime, I am certain that magistrates will face up to crime much more seriously than they have in the last ten years.
The two great fallacies on which hon. Members opposite base themselves are the fallacies contained in the Cadogan and Barry Reports. Both Reports are based on a statistic, which is that the boy who has been birched has no worse and no better record than the boy who has been put on probation. The answer is that the boys who are capable of being birched are the boys who will be very bad, anyhow. The fact that their record is about the same as those who have been put on probation shows that they have pulled themselves up. One would expect their record to be very much worse than the record of those put on probation.
The second great fallacy of the Barry Report is that we are not told how many crimes of violence before the war were prevented by the fear of the deterrent of the cane, which existed in those days. The Barry Report does not tell us that at all.
It has been asked: who will do the birching? I have spoken to some police officers since the Standing Committee proceedings, and they all clearly told me that if they were ordered by Parliament to carry out birching they would take it as their duty—

Mrs. E. M. Braddock: Does not the hon. Gentleman think that it might be useful if the magistrate who ordered the penalty did the birching? That might change the whole situation.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: I think that it would be perfectly proper for the police to do the birching, as happened before the war.
Mention has been made of the delay in punishing a young man in this way, because he might have to wait two or three weeks until his appeal had been heard. That delay occurred before the war, and nobody made much fuss about it then.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) asked what crimes would be covered by this new Clause, and thought that it might be difficult to list

those crimes. I think that that would be perfectly easy. I myself would list violence, malicious wounding, indictable assaults and robbery with violence—and it might be perfectly open also to include malicious damage to property of the type of which we have had recent cases.
I would point out to the Home Secretary that since 1938, we have had a terrible increase in crime. Juvenile crime has gone up by nine or ten times. I would ask my right hon. Friend to think of his predecessor, Sir William Joynson-Hicks, who sat for my constituency in the 'twenties We then had a Home Secretary who, had he been Home Secretary now, would, I am certain, have stamped on this crime wave effectively—

Mr. Charles Pannell: The hon. Member speaks of a Home Secretary of the 'twenties. That same Home Secretary propagated armed insurrection in Ulster, and all sorts of traitorous and misconceived ideas. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will leave the late Lord Brentford out of the argument.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: He was a very efficient Home Secretary—

Mr. Pannell: He is merely remembered because he appointed his wife to a Royal Commission.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: I will not enter tonight into an argument about the late Lord Brentford—

Mr. Pannell: Jobs for the girls.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Hon. Members will remember that before the war the rate of crime of this type was very much lower than it is today, and that both magistrates and Home Secretaries were tougher then than they are today. We face a most serious situation, and I feel, as do my hon. Friends, that we have to give this birching and caning a try for a time. Unless my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary can bring it in, I shall have to vote against the Government.

Mr. S. Silverman: I had not intended to take part in this debate because, although I recognise that it has been conducted with great intelligence and good temper and, on the whole, good humour—I hope that I shall not be thought offensive if I say this—it has been mainly a rehash of an argument whose real content was


exhausted very many years ago, and because I thought that it might have been better to have a qucker end of this debate—after adequate time—and to get on with something else. Since it has gone on for more than four hours, and there is now no prospect of more important questions being given the same length of time, it is not, perhaps, a matter for apology if I offer a comment of my own.
I have listened, not to all of this debate but to a great deal of it. Let us see what is common ground among us before we proceed to consider what we differ about. There has been a great deal of talk about deterrence. There is no Member of the House, whatever his view on this question, who believes that deterrence is the only factor in the argument. We are all satisfied that there are some things we must not do even if we are 100 per cent. satisfied that they are 100 per cent. deterrents. That is the answer which supporters of the Clause might well give to the taunts levelled against them when they are asked, "If you believe in the deterrent virtue of this particular penalty over and above all other penalties, why are you so anxious and meticulous to say that you do not believe in flogging?". They say that they do not ask to restore the "cat". Why not ask to restore the "cat"? If deterrence is the only thing one has to consider, and if violence is the only effective remedy for violence, ought one not to advocate the return of the "cat"?
The reason why supporters of the Clause do not advocate the restoration of flogging, if by that is meant the "cat", and do not advocate the restoration of the stocks, the pillory, the thumbscrew or breaking on the wheel is not that these would not be effective deterrents. Clearly, if the cane or the birch is an effective deterrent, then breaking on the wheel, or the rope, would be an effective deterrent. The reason why they do not advocate these things is that everyone realises that, deterrent or no deterrent, there are some things which one should not do.

Mr. van Straubenzee: Would it be equally fair for me to retort that the hon. Member would not, for instance, propose returning to bread and water in a detention centre for the same reason? I do not think that it would be.

Mr. Silverman: If the hon. Gentleman will have a little patience, he will be able to follow a connected argument to the end. I was beginning only with the first point I make, that although this argument about deterrence has some validity in the discussion, it is a mistake to suppose that it is the only or a decisive factor. It is not, and no one in the House believes that it is.

Mr. J. C. Jennings: I have followed very carefully the hon. Gentleman's logical argument. Will he agree that another factor enters into a consideration of the question he asks, namely, what the public conscience will accept? The public conscience will accept the cane and the birch, but it would not accept the thumbscrew, the rack or breaking on the wheel. It should be made clear that we are advocating what the public conscience demands and will accept.

Mr. Silverman: With great respect to the hon. Member, that is exactly what I say. There are some kinds of penalty so revolting in themselves that the public will not stand for them. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman did not intend to be understood as saying that, if only he could get away with it in public opinion, he would be in favour of any such restoration.

Mr. Jennings: Of course not.

Mr. Silverman: So his argument about public opinion did not really justify his intervention. What he says about public opinion is true equally of himself just as it is true of every hon. Member of the House of Commons.
Deterrence is not the only factor. I agree that it is one of the factors, if it can be established. But the whole history of the matter shows that one cannot establish that this form of penalty is any more effective in preventing or deterring crime than any other penalty.
8.45 p.m.
There are people who sneer at statistics, but they are not logical when they do so. They ask us to take full cognisance of all the figures concerning the increase in crime. They do not say disregard them or that we should take no notice of them. They do not say that we should disregard all the figures which the Home Secretary provided for


the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro). So far from saying that figures and statistics do not matter, they are saying that they are the very basis of their case. They are asking the House to adopt this proposal because, they say, crime of this kind is increasing. They prove that crime of this kind is increasing by pointing to the figures. If the figures are valid for showing how crime of this kind is accelerating, growing, varying, and so on, they cannot say, with any show of reason, that the other figures which the Home Office provides about how far the infliction of this penalty has in the past prevented a particular offender from committing the same crime do not matter.
There is a tendency for us to call figures statistics when we do not like what they show and want to dismiss them from the argument, and to call figures evidence when they support the case that we wish to propound. But this is not good argument. This is not the way to reach sound or sane decisions. The fact is that just as the figures show that there has been an increase in crime, the same figures show that the remedy which is being advocated here is not a remedy at all. The figures are there. We can say that we do not wish to pay attention to them, that we do not believe them, that we have misread them or that we have drawn the wrong inferences from them, but no one has an interest in drawing the wrong inferences.

Mr. R. J. Maxwell-Hyslop: The hon. Gentleman has said that the figures show that corporal punishment is ineffective. As there has not been any corporal punishment in the last decade, how can that statement possibly be true?

Mr. Silverman: I do not want to repeat the argument which has been used ad nauseam on both sides of the House in the last four hours. The hon. Gentleman must take it from me. I know that it is a great deal to ask, but it is getting late and I do not wish to speak for much longer.
The general concensus of opinion is that the evidence of the figures, both during the period when we had this penalty and during the period when we had not, and more particularly if we relate the removal of the penalty to the

crimes for which the penalty used to be inflicted, is all one way.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop indicated dissent.

Mr. Silverman: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head. All I can say is that most people who are acquainted with the figures know that they point in the direction that I have indicated. The hon. Gentleman would not abandon his argument, even if he thought that I was right on this point, because he thinks that there is some virtue in this penalty, quite apart from deterrence, the merits of the matter or anything else. There is a sort of nostalgia about it. There is a sort of undercurrent, a kind of emotional spasm, about it, sometimes mixed up with not very desirable emotions.
I should like hon. Members to remember in their quiet moments that almost every hon. Member who has described the actual operation or who has recalled school-time memories has found it a source of merriment. Have they ever paused to consider why they thought it funny or what the deep psychological foundations are for this sense of fun? If we cannot establish that this thing really does prevent crime more than any other penalty, there is no case for it.
One final word. There has been a rise in juvenile crime since the war. The hon. Gentleman repeated it several times, and he is quite right. It is a terrifying increase in crime, but the hon. Gentleman talks about the figures before the war and the figures since the war as though the war had not happened, as though it had no effect on the matter at all, as though we could take it out of the picture and treat the whole pattern of development as if those dreadful six years had never occurred. The generation with which we are dealing was the most bitterly betrayed generation of almost any in the history of mankind.
I am not saying that the war could have been prevented. I was never one of those who thought that there was any escape from the Hitler war in the end. It may have been a most unnecessary war, but certainly it became, as they handled it, the most inevitable war. I am not saying it could have been prevented, but, please, do not let us forget the devastating effect which it had on the lives of young children who certainly


had no responsibility for the world in which they were compelled to be brought up in those early formative years.
Before we go about making these demands to inflict all kinds of further suffering and further physical cruelty, let us ask ourselves how much their fault is our fault. For how much are we responsible? How much have we neglected them? How much have we treated them badly, failed to educate them, failed to give them any kind of example which they could follow? Let us remember, in the end, that we do not

cast out Beelzebub by Beelzebub. If violence against the person is a bad thing, as undoubtely it is, it is a bad thing whoever inflicts it.

Mr. A. E. Cooper: Mr. A. E. Cooper (Ilford, North) rose in his place, and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the Clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 67, Noes 259.

Division No. 131.]
AYES
[8.55 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Gurden, Harold
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Barlow, Sir John
Hiley, Joseph
Osborne, Cyril (Louth)


Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)
Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Bidgood, John C.
Hirst, Geoffrey
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Black, Sir Cyril
Hocking, Philip N.
Pilkington, Sir Richard


Brewis, John
Hollingworth, John
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Howard, Hon. G. R. (St. Ives)
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Cleaver, Leonard
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye).
Stodart, J. A.


Cooke, Robert
Jennings, J. C.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Cordle, John
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)


Craddock, Sir Beresford
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Teeling, William


Dance, James
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Donaldson, Cmdr, C. E. M.
Kershaw, Anthony
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Drayson, G. B.
Lagden, Godfrey
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


du Cann, Edward
Longden, Gilbert
Turner, Colin


Duncan, Sir James
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn
Walker, Peter


Eden, John
MacArthur, Ian
Ward, Dame Irene


Farey-Jones, F. W.
Mawby, Ray
Watts, James


Farr, John
Maxwell-Hyslop, R- J.
Wise, A. R.


Fell, Anthony
Maydon, Lt-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Woodnutt, Mark


Gresham Cooke, R.
Montgomery, Fergus



Grimston, Sir Robert
Nabarro, Gerald
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Sir T. Moore and Mr. N. Pannell




NOES


Abse, Leo
Chapman, Donald
Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)


Ainsley, William
Chataway, Christopher
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)


Allason, James
Chetwynd, George
Forrest, George


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Chichester-Clark, R.
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)


Arbuthnot, John
Cliffe, Michael
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh


Awbery, Stan
Cole, Norman
Gammans, Lady


Bacon, Miss Alice
Cooper, A. E.
Gibson-Watt, David


Balniel, Lord
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Ginsburg, David


Barber, Anthony
Corfield, F. V.
Goodhart, Philip


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos &amp; Fhm)
Coulson, J. M.
Goodhew, Victor


Benson, Sir George
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.


Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald (Toxteth)
Critchley, Julian
Gourlay, Harry


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Gower, Raymond


Bishop, F. P.
Cunningham, Knox
Grant, Rt. Hon. William


Blackburn, F.
Curran, Charles
Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R.


Bossom, Clive
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)


Bourne-Arton, A
Deedes, W. F.
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.


Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
Deer, George
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John
de Ferranti, Basil
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)


Boyle, Sir Edward
Dempsey, James
Hamilton, William (West Fife)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Hart, Mrs. Judith


Brookway, A. Fenner
Dodds, Norman
Hayman, F. H.


Brooman-White, R.
Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Herbison, Miss Margaret


Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Hobson, John


Bryan, Paul
Elliott, R. W. (Nwcstle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Holland, Philip


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Errington, Sir Eric
Holman, Percy


Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Evans, Albert
Holt, Arthur


Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.)
Fernyhough, E.
Hopkins, Alan


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Finch, Harold
Hornby, R. P.


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Finlay, Graeme
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Patricia


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Fisher, Nigel
Houghton, Douglas


Cary, Sir Robert
Fitch, Alan
Howard, John (Southampton, Test)


Channon, H. P. G.
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Howell, Charles A.




Howell, Denis
Mendelson, J. J.
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Millan, Bruce
Small, William


Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Mills, Stratton
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'rd &amp; Chiswick)


Hughes-Young, Michael
Milne, Edward J.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Hunter, A. E.
Mitchison, G. R.
Sorensen, R. W.


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Moyle, Arthur
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Mulley, Frederick
Spriggs, Leslie


Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Neal, Harold
Steele, Thomas


Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Neave, Airey
Stevens, Geoffrey


Jackson, John
Noble, Michael
Stonehouse, John


Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S)
Oliver, G. H.
Stones, William


Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech (Wakefield)
Orr-Ewing, C. Ian
Storey, Sir Samuel


Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green)
Oswald, Thomas
Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Padley, W. E.
Studholme, Sir Henry


Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Paget, R. T.
Sylvester, George


Joseph, Sir Keith
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Tapsell, Peter


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Pavitt, Laurence
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Kelley, Richard
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Thomas, Peter (Conway)


Kirk, Peter
Peel, John
Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)


Lawson, George
Pentland, Norman
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Leavey, J. A.
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)


Leburn, Gilmour
Pitt, Miss Edith
Thornton Kemsley, Sir Colin


Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Pott, Percivall
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Prentice, R. E.
Vane, W. M. F.


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Prior, J. M. L.
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir John


Linstead, Sir Hugh
Prior-Palmer, Brig, Sir Otho
Vickers, Miss Joan


Lipton, Marcus
Proctor, W. T.
Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis


Loughlin, Charles
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Wade, Donald


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry
Wainwright, Edwin


Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Pym, Francis
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


McCann, John
Ramsden, James
Warbey, William


MacColl, James
Randall, Harry
Webster, David


McInnes, James
Rankin, John
Weitzman, David


McKay, John (Wallsend)
Rawlinson, Peter
Wells, John (Maidstone)


McLaren, Martin
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin
Whitelaw, William


McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia
Rees, Hugh
Whitlock, William


McMaster, Stanley R.
Reid, William
Wigg, George


MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Renton, David
Wilkins, W. A.


Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Reynolds, G. W.
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Maddan, Martin
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Maginnis, John E.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Maitland, Sir John
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Woodhouse, C. M.


Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)
Woollam, John


Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Roots, William
Worsley, Marcus


Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Russell, Ronald
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Manuel, A. C.
Shaw, M.
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Marquand, Rt. Hon H. A.
Shepherd, William



Marsh, Richard
Short, Edward
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Marten, Neil
Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Colonel J. H. Harrison and


Mathew, Robert (Honiton)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Mr. J. E. B. Hill.


Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

Miss Bacon: I beg to move,
That further consideration of the Bill, as amended, be now adjourned
I do so to find out what are the intentions of the Government about the Bill. We have now spent five-and-a-quarter hours on one new Clause which was discussed adequately during the Committee stage for four-and-a-half hours, after which it was defeated by 26 votes to 6. Very soon we shall reach another most important Clause concerning the restriction of the death penalty. This was defeated by only 16 votes to 15 during the Committee stage discussions. I should like to know from the Home Secretary whether it is his intention to go on so late tonight that the vote on this very important Clause will be taken at a late hour.
In view of the fact that we have taken so long on this one Clause, and still have

to consider the control of approved schools, attendance centres, the future of the Prison Commission and the whole of the question of after-care, as well as take the Third Reading—that could take a considerable time—I should like to know whether it is still the intention of the right hon. Gentleman to try to get the whole of this Bill tomorrow.

Mr. R. A. Butler: The hour is very early for a discussion about progress on a Bill of this sort. Our discussions have, I think, been conducted in an atmosphere of constructive argument; I hope that applies to the patient debate we have just listened to. We all knew that that debate would take a long time, because there is a lot of feeling on the subject, and when there is a lot of feeling in the House, on either side, the discussion always takes a long time. We shall then


come to a comparatively short Amendment which is important but technical. Then we shall have a very important debate on the death penalty. All I can say at this stage is, at least let us make progress.
We do not propose to keep the House unreasonably late. We shall sit beyond eleven o'clock, I should imagine, but we do not propose to kep the House up all night. We want to make reasonable progress. If we find that we can reach a decision on this matter, let us do so. If we cannot, we cannot do so, but let us approach it in an atmosphere of reason. If we have to put off the vote until tomorrow, we shall have to do so, but I think that we should try to make sufficient progress with this important debate to attempt to reach a decision tonight.

Mr. Gordon Walker: When the right hon. Gentleman says we should reach a decision on this important matter he is, I take it, referring to the question of capital punishment. It seems to me very optimistic to think that we should reach a decision if he is thinking of the House rising at about eleven o'clock. We have had a debate which was kept going mainly by speakers from the opposite side of the House. I make no complaint about that; I state it as a fact. If, as I understood him to say, the right hon. Gentleman expects that we shall rise at eleven o'clock—

Mr. R. A. Butler: I did not say that it would necessarily be eleven o'clock. I said that we were not going to sit all night. I would put the limit at twelve o'clock. The point is to make progress.

Mr. Gordon Walker: The right hon. Gentleman originally said eleven o'clock. I heard him say at "about eleven". He also talked about not sitting all night. I thought that the night ended at twelve. We should be perfectly prepared to accept the right hon. Gentleman's first thoughts on this subject, that we should sit till about eleven, making good and constructive progress on the next Amendment and then starting on the big one about capital punishment, which, of course, will also arouse on both sides of the House deep and divided feelings which, in the same way as on the previous Amendment, must be given vent to. If the previous debate ran for nearly

five hours, we can expect the debate on capital punishment to run a considerable time.
Therefore, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will adhere to his first words to us when he spoke of "about eleven". [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I heard the right hon. Gentleman say "eleven". [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] The right hon. Gentleman said "not much later than eleven." [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] At any rate, the word "eleven" occurred in the right hon. Gentleman's remarks. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] There is a difference between "later than eleven" and "twelve". If the right hon. Gentleman had meant "twelve" he would have said "twelve". He is a man of great precision of language, as is well and widely known, a man who always says clearly, exactly and lucidly what he means.
It is not hon. Members on this side of the Chamber who have been keeping the House up till this time. If there is a general desire to sit all night, we on this side of the House are prepared to do so if we have to do it. [Interruption.] Hon. Members opposite who have been keeping the House here, no doubt quite rightly, for the greater part of five-and-a-quarter hours—out has been mainly through their own efforts—really have no right to be impatient at this stage of the proceedings. They have brought us into this difficulty. [Interruption.] Of course they have.
We want to know how long we are going to be asked to sit. We have to decide how to divide upon the Question before the House. We want to know whether the right hon. Gentleman meant "not much later than eleven", because there is a lot of difference between "not much later than eleven" and "sitting till midnight". Therefore, the answer which the right hon. Gentleman can give us will make some difference to our attitude towards this question, towards the question of suspending the Rule, and towards other questions which lie ahead of us.

Mr. R. A. Butler: We must be very careful about the way we handle the procedure of the House. As the hon. Lady the Member for Leeds, South-East (Miss Bacon) said, it is true that both these subjects were very fully discussed in the Standing Committee. With your gracious consent, Mr. Speaker, we have now been able fully to rehearse and consider all


the arguments on these issues for a second time. We must try to prevent that from wrecking all consideration of the Clauses of the Bill from Clause I onwards, which I should like to reach tomorrow so that we may start on them. I think that is perfectly reasonable.
The hon. Lady need not get excited, nor need her right hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker). On a question of life and death I think it would be wrong to force the House to take a decision at an hour which it found unreasonable. I think that I am not trying to be unreasonable in my remark about eleven o'clock. I said that after eleven o'clock I should begin to consider the situation and that we would not sit later than twelve. I honestly think that it will be found that there are many hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who wish to speak on this Bill if we give a little latitude tonight and do not go to bed too early, as long as they find that they are not being rushed about a decision.
What I want to do as Leader of the House is to see how the debate goes and if there are a great many speeches to come, fit several of them in tonight so that we do not sit too long tomorrow before we come to a vote. That is my idea, and I think that is the best way to deal with the matter. I am putting my cards right on the table. I think that is the right way to deal with the question of capital punishment. I do not think that it would be right for the right hon. Gentleman or his hon. Friend to stop a few extra speeches tonight if hon. Members want to speak. I shall be here to listen whatever hour we rise, but I do not wish us to sit too late and certainly not all night, for that would not be the way to run the proceedings. If we find an easy decision, let us take it, but if there is doubt about the position, I shall bow to the feeling of the House.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. S. Silverman: I do not want to detain the House, and we are all grateful for much of what the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary said. I would, however, like to have a specific understanding—though I know that a decision would rest ultimately with you, Mr. Speaker, if such a Motion were

moved—that the Government do not intend to move the Closure of the debate on the death penalty in order to get a tidy result in today's debating and to leave the field clear for other matters tomorrow.
I gather from what the right hon. Gentleman has said that he does not think that that would be the right thing to do, and that the debate on the proposal to raise the age limit for the infliction of the death penalty, which arouses as much, and perhaps more, feeling than the question of corporal punishment, should not be foreshortened.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I do not think that any healthy Government ever gives undertakings about the subject of the Closure. I have said, however, that I do not think that a decision should be forced tonight if it is against the general wishes of the House. As I shall be here throughout the debate, I shall be able to calculate the feeling of the House. If there is a feeling for a decision then we may take one, but I think that the House will want to take a decision first order tomorrow as soon as we can. I do not want, however, to prevent one or two hon. Members from making speeches on the subject tonight if they wish to do so.

Miss Bacon: In view of the fact that the Home Secretary has given an undertaking that the vote on the death penalty will not be rushed, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause.—(REPORTS BEFORE SENTENCE.)

(1) Where a person under twenty-one years old has been either convicted by a court (not being a magistrates' court) or committed to that court, for sentence the court shall before sentencing him consider—

(a) any information provided by the Secretary of State about the types and availability of different methods of penal treatment and the kind of offender for whom they are likely to be suitable; and
(b) any reports submitted by a probation officer or by or on behalf of the Prison Commissioners in respect of that person.

(2) In the case of a person to whom sub section (1) of this section applies, the probation officer assigned to the court by which he is committed for trial or for sentence or any other probation officer acting on his behalf shall as far as practicable make a report for the use


of the court to which the person is committed, containing information about—

(a) the social and domestic background of the person which is relevant to an assessment of his culpability;
(b) the person and his surroundings which is relevant to the consideration of how his criminal career might be checked; and
(c) the likely effects on the person of the methods of treatment available;

Provided that where the person has been committed for trial no report shall be made without his consent.

(3) A report made by or on behalf of the Prison Commissioners for the purpose of this section shall provide information about the physical and mental suitability of the person for a sentence at a borstal training centre or of committal to a detention centre and whether any other form of penal treatment is likely to be more suitable.

(4) Subject to subsection (5) of this section in any case where no reports have been made under paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of this section or in the opinion of the court the information is inadequate the court shall remand the person in custody or on bail for such period or periods, no single period exceeding three weeks as the court thinks necessary for the information to be obtained.

(5) A sentence under section two or paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of section three of this Act shall not be passed unless the court has considered reports by a probation officer and by or on behalf of the Prison Commission under this section.

(6) A remand under subsection (5) of this section may be a remand to appear at any other count with jurisdiction to try the offence for which he has been convicted.—[Mr. MacColl.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. MacColl: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
I am aware that on both sides of the House there is an understandable desire to get on to the dramatic subject which is to follow the debate on this Clause. But I make no apology for moving it, and for doing so with care, because the truth—if we really want the truth—is that this Clause is very much more important than the one we have just debated for over five hours, because that one was the emotional reaction to a very serious situation and was not really constructive.
The Clause I am moving goes to the root of the question of the working of the courts in sentencing policy. If, by this means, we can make the courts more efficient, more effective, and more knowledgeable in their estimates of prisoners, then the kind of debate we have just had, and, for all I know, the kind of

debate we shall have later, may prove to be redundant.
The history of this matter is that upstairs, in Committee, we had a discussion on the kind of reports which should be available to courts, and on the kind of procedure they should adopt in obtaining such reports, particularly referring to persons being sent to detention centres. I got into a certain amount of hot water and criticism for desiring, in some cases, to remand people in custody for the obtaining of these reports. We were told, particularly by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Joint Under-Secretary of State, that we were being rather hypercritical in our doubts about the reports, that the system was working quite well, and that the reports were adequate.
That debate took place early in the Committee proceedings on the Bill, but between that debate and this the very important Streatfeild Report has been published—the Report of the Interdepartmental Committee on the Business of the Criminal Courts, Cmd. 1289. Part B of that Report deals specifically with arrangements for providing the courts with the information necessary to enable them to select the most appropriate treatment for offenders.
It is fair to say that that very interesting and careful Report of a Committee under the chairmanship of one of Her Majesty's judges, whose views are frequently quoted with awe and respect, is an extremely valuable document. In the new Clause we have attempted not to make any constructive contribution of our own, but simply to set out what seemed to us to be the subject of the Streatfeild recommendations in that part of the Report.
The best and quickest way I can develop the argument is probably to make some comments on what those recommendations are. The first line of the new Clause deals with persons under 21 years of age. That is partly to bring the Clause in order, because the Bill deals only with persons under 21, but also because everyone agrees that the treatment of young people is a more difficult and anxious problem than that of dealing with older people. The most worrying problem for those exercising judicial functions, in the High Court or elsewhere, is how best to deal with


young people, because mistakes made early in the life of a young offender may have the most terrible results later and it is, therefore, all the more important, in dealing with young people, that we should be certain that the courts have adequate information about them.
The Clause refers, secondly, to young offenders who have been convicted by a court not being a magistrates' court, or have been committed to that court for sentence. In other words, it deals not with magistrates' courts, but with quarter sessions, assizes and Crown courts. The reason for that is that the Streatfeild Committee dealt with those courts and it seemed reasonable that we should limit ourselves to that problem. There is another practical reason which is that all cases which go to the higher court have already been before the lower court, so that there is a period between the original committal for trial, or for sentence, and a final decision. There is a pause, and the argument that asking for more detailed reports in a magistrates' court delays justice and leads to unnecessary remands, and so on, does not apply in this case.
The kind of information which we say should be available to the court is of two kinds. First, there is the general information about the types and availability of different methods of penal treatment and the kind of offender for whom they are likely to be suitable. In other words, this is not something specific to the individual offender, but is general information about the difference between detention centres, what types of detention centres are available, whether they provide short sharp shocks, whether they are tough, whether they provide adequate treatment for unstable or physically defective people, and general questions of that kind about which it is difficult for those who are passing sentences to have up-to-date information. We suggest that there should be a specific obligation on the courts to consider them.
In doing that we are in conformity with what the Streatfeild Committee says, because, in talking about general information relevant to sentencing, the Report says that this general information is, in scope and quantity, different from the general information now pro-

vided for sentencing. This is a consequence of a wider appreciation of the complexity of sentencing and the greater attention given to the different objectives at which sentences aim. Courts will increasingly need to assimilate more information of a new type. In other words, this is not something which a lot of theorists, or a lot of academics are saying. The Streatfeild Committee, the expert Committee, is saying that what is required is different in scope and quantity from what is available at the moment. The second type of report is the individual report dealing with the individual offender who is to be sentenced. We say that the courts should consider reports submitted by a probation officer, or by and on behalf of the Prison Commissioners, in respect of that person.
May I deal with those two points. First, there is the question of the report of the probation officer. I had almost a scratching match with the hon. and learned Gentleman the Joint Under-Secretary of State because he thought that I was being a little unfair to him when I suggested that it was his opinion that police reports about offenders were, in some cases, all that was necessary. Be that as it may, I want again to quote—and this has come out since our little argument—what the Streatfeild Committee said. Talking about a detailed study of the offender's social and domestic background, the Report says in paragraph 327:
This deeper study of the offender is better entrusted to a probation officer, as a trained social worker serving the court; and in any event it would be inappropriate for the police to enquire into some of the background matters which a probation officer finds it useful to examine.
I draw the attention of the House to the fact that the Streatfeild Committee places the work of a probation officer in its proper context and draws attention to its expert quality which cannot be paralleled by any of the other services dealing with this kind of offender. We therefore mention the importance of the probation officers report.
We go on to say which probation officer should deal with the matter, and we outline the kind of case with which a probation officers report should deal, and here again we have kept strictly to the words of the Streatfeild Committee's Report. The words in subsection


(2, a, b and c) are taken from paragraph 335 of the Report. They are, therefore, not a lot of wordy verbiage which we have put in. This is something which the Committee picked out as being essential to be covered by a probation officer's report. We have, however, put in a proviso, which is that these reports should not be obtained without the consent of the person committed for trial. One of the controversial questions often under discussion is how far it is right for inquiries to be made by probation officers where the person has not yet been convicted.
9.30 p.m.
We say that the right procedure when a person is committed for trial is that if he consents there should be presentencing inquiries made between the lower and the higher court. If he says, "No, I am innocent. I shall not have any officer of the court asking me how much I drink, whether I beat my wife—"and so on, he is entitled to take that attitude, but he runs the risk of delay in the final disposal of his case and of further remands.
We go on to deal with what should be included in the report by the Prison Commissioners. We were all skating on rather thin ice because many of us were rather uneasy about reports by Prison Commissioners, yet, on the other hand, we had not much evidence and did not want to be too critical on a subject over which some of us had not much information. I draw attention to paragraph 374 of the Report, which says:
The courts often derive little help from the governor's opinion on suitability which is couched in a stereotyped form laid down by the Prison Commissioners.
We say that the Prison Commissioners' report should include
information about the physical and mental suitability of the person for … borstal … or … a detention centre and"—
This is important—
whether any other form of penal treatment is likely to be more suitable.
Often reports give a formal statement of whether an offender is suitable for borstal training, but not whether, in the view of the Commissioners, that is the best form of training available. It is important that the court should know, first, whether borstal is, in fact, suitable

and, secondly, whether or not there are more suitable forms of treatment. That, again, is something taken from the Report of the Streatfeild Committee.
The only other point I mention is that we provide that in two particular cases it shall be mandatory to have these two reports. In other cases where they are available—and we hope that usually they will be available—the court must take them into account, but in two types of cases we say there must be these reports and the courts must have them before they use the two sentences provided. The two sentences are very long detention for serious crime and detention during Her Majesty's pleasure—which has been extended under the Bill beyond cases of murder and manslaughter to any offence at the moment carrying a sentence of fourteen years—and sentences of imprisonment for more than three years.
Before the court sentences a young person to more than three years or to be detained during Her Majesty's pleasure, they must have the reports and the views of probation officers and Prison Commissioners on these matters. I should like to have gone into more detail on this question, because I may be challenged on some of the administrative details, but I have tried to bring out the salient points as quickly as I could.
The Streatfeild Committee's Report is a very clear statement both of the weaknesses of the present position and the directions in which it should be improved. We are not doing more than saying that, having set up the Streatfeild Committee—it was not set up by us but by the Government—and the Report having been produced after long and detailed consideration, we do not want to miss the chance of the Bill embodying its main recommendations because it may be a very long time before we have another chance of doing so. It seemed right and proper, in the absence of any move by the Government in this direction, to put down this new Clause.
I return to what I said at the beginning of my speech and emphasise that all this talk about flogging and hanging is unnecessary. The critical question is: do people who have the terrible responsibility of imposing sentences which vitally affect the lives of young offenders


have available to them the necessary information to do their job properly in the way in which they would like to do it?
We must get away—and this, again, is only a paraphrase of what the Report says—from the sort of amateur approach to sentences, from the feeling that any good lawyer with common sense knows how to deal with the offender. The whole weight of the Report is against that idea. It emphasises the highly skilled nature of sentencing and the desirability that the people who are charged with this duty should visit institutions and have a clear understanding of the types of treatment available and have all the information they require from court officers and Prison Commissioners before they make their decisions. It is for all these reasons that I have moved the Second Reading of the new Clause.

The Attorney-General: The hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) began his speech in support of the new Clause by emphasising the need for courts to be provided with all relevant information before passing sentence. We entirely agree with that proposition and it was for that very reason that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary when he appointed the Streatfeild Committee charged it with the task of considering this problem. On that, so far, we are in complete agreement.
The hon. Member and his hon. Friends have endeavoured to embody in one Clause the whole effect, as far as persons under 21 are concerned, of Part B of the Streatfeild Report, which is a rather massive document. I am sure that the hon. Member will not be surprised if I tell him that his effort to do so, although commendable, is open to certain criticisms which I will make of it in due course. But, first, I should like to express on behalf of my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friends, and perhaps on behalf of the whole House, our thanks to Mr. Justice Streatfeild and his colleagues for producing this Report which is really most valuable. It covers a very wide field and deals clearly, comprehensively and practically with complicated and difficult subjects. It is a long and important document and it deserves careful study. It was published

on 28th February. We are now engaged in considering it in detail and in considering what legislation is necessary and what administrative steps will require to be taken.
I am sure that the hon. Member for Widnes will appreciate that if we are to make a big reform following upon this Report it really is not possible to divorce Part B from Part A and to treat them as entirely distinct. The two Parts must fit into the new pattern. Legislation will be required for the implementation of that pattern. Until we have reached final decisions about that pattern, it would be unwise to tackle this problem piecemeal and it would be particularly unwise to tackle it, as does this Clause, solely in relation to persons under 21. I make no criticism of the Clause on that ground, because it is necessary to put it that way if it is to be in this Bill.
We have therefore taken the view that it would not be right to include in the Bill any Clause on these lines limited only to persons under 21 when the Streatfeild Report on the information which should be made available to the courts is a Report which covers the position with regard to all offenders.
I shall not discuss—I should not be in order if I did so—the recommendations in Part A of the Streatfeild Report, which deals with the reorganisation of the circuits, the constitution of different courts, and quarter sessions ceasing to be quarter sessions and sitting perhaps almost continuously. The House will appreciate that there is a link between Parts A and B of the Report and that the amount of information which can be provided for a court before sentence is passed depends to an important extent on the amount of time allowed for the preparation of the necessary reports by the court's own arrangements.
The hon. Gentleman has made a praiseworthy effort. I shall deal with the detail of it, because he dealt with it very fully and it would be discourteous of me if I made no reference to his observations upon it. He explained his reasons for subsection (1), but subsection (1, a) does not quite follow the Report of the Streatfeild Committee. It requires the court to consider before sentencing any prisoner
any information provided by the Secretary of State


That is very different. It would delay proceedings immensely if that had to be be done in every sense. The Streatfeild Committee recommended that general guidance should be given to courts, and it is really a defect in drafting.
With regard to subsection (1, b), the hon. Gentleman fell into the error into which he fell in Committee in misquoting my hon. and learned Friend. It was drawn to his attention then, but I am afraid he fell into the same error again today. I will not pursue that matter.
As for reports by probation officers, I ask the hon. Gentleman to bear this fact in mind, which I think he also forgot. Deliberately by Clause 1 (3), while we have made it possible for the Prison Commissioners to make reports if they wish, we have not imposed the obligation upon them to make reports as to suitability for borstal. As I explained in Committee, borstal will become quite a different thing in the sense that, instead of only a selected few going to borstal, it will be the medium term sentence available for young people. There will be no question of unsuitability for borstal if a sentence within that term is the appropriate sentence. I explained that in Committee. The Streatfeild Committee did not, and the Bill does not, impose a requirement on the Prison Commissioners to report as to the suitability of a person for sentence to borstal training. Subsection (3) of the new Clause does. In the view of the Government, that is another defect in the Clause.
Subsection (4), if I understand it correctly, makes it absolutely mandatory that there shall be a remand, in custody or on bail, unless the requirements of subsections (1, a) and (1, b) are dealt with. That mandatory effect of subsection (4) is not affected by subsection (5).
Those are some of the defects, perhaps of a rather technical character, in the Clause. It is a bold and commendable attempt to embody in one Clause all that is recommended in Part B of the Streatfeild Report. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for having made the attempt, because it has given me the opportunity of saying something about it and of expressing the Government's thanks—and, I think, the thanks of all of us—to the Streatfeild Committee for the useful work it has done.

Mr. MacColl: What I intended to do was to provide that it is not mandatory on probation officers and Prison Commissioners to make a report in every case; but if there is not a report from either source, or if the reports are inadequate, there is a duty under subsection (4) to remand. The only cases in which I intended both reports to be mandatory were in the very serious cases, namely, sentences of three years or detention during Her Majesty's pleasure.

The Attorney-General: The hon. Gentleman made that perfectly clear in his explicit explanation of this Clause, but, in fact, it does not, I think, quite tally with the wording of the Clause. Anyhow, we need not trouble about that. The hon. Gentleman has made his intentions absolutely clear, and I can say to him that I think that it has been useful to us—who are concerned with the consideration of this Report, the consideration of what legislative effect should be given to it and the administrative provisions—to have had the advantage in this way of the hon. Gentleman's thoughts on Part B of the Report. Having said that and having dealt, I hope fairly fully, with the points made by the hon. Gentleman, I hope that we might perhaps get on to other business.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. David Weitzman: I agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman that we must all be extremely grateful for the very valuable Streatfeild Report. I recognise that there is a great deal in the point that one ought to do this in a logical way, which is to get the whole of the recommendations of the Streatfeild Report put into legislative form after proper consideration, but I want to put one matter to the Attorney-General.
The provisions of this Clause are undoubtedly extremely important. Whether or not the Streatfeild Committee made these suggestions in this precise form does not matter for a moment, but they were put forward as very important matters calling for reform. I am sure that the Attorney-General will agree that it would be a very great pity that when we have a Bill of this kind, which is concerned with juveniles, we should not take the first opportunity of


putting in a reform that is so necessary and so very effective.
There may be a number of defects in the drafting of the Clause—the right hon. and learned Gentleman referred to a number of them—but it does set out the essentials of the reforms proposed by the Streatfeild Committee. My point is that before the Bill is finished with—and it has to go to another place—the opportunity ought to be taken to deal with this new Clause, if not as it is drafted at least in such a way as to bring into effect at the earliest possible moment the reforms proposed by the Streatfeild Committee.
Is it essential—however desirable it may be in other ways—that we should have to wait for the whole thing to come into being? After all, consideration can take a very long time. We are always told that the Government have not time for many of these matters; here is a very good opportunity to bring in a necessary and effective reform—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not understand what the hon. and learned Gentleman is saying. There is a Clause on the Notice Paper. There is no other Clause, as far as I know, bearing on this point and debate is confined, unless I am mistaken, to the Clause.

Mr. Weitzman: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, I am merely urging that the right hon. and learned Gentleman might consider whether the Clause can be accepted by the Government.

Mr. Abse: I would not have sought now to detain the House even for a few minutes if it were not that only three days ago I received a letter from the Home Secretary which illustrates the urgent need for a Clause of this character to come into effect.
On 9th March I asked a Question of the Home Secretary concerning the son of a constituent, a young lad who had been sentenced at the Monmouthshire Quarter Sessions to borstal training. I discovered, about two months afterwards, from my constituent—the boy's mother—that she had been seeking, two months from the time of sentence, to give tablets to the boy who was then in prison awaiting transference to a borstal institution or an allocation centre. On investigating the matter, I discovered

that this boy was an ideopathic epileptic. This fact was quite unknown to the chairman of quarter sessions, although the boy had been on bail from the time he was committed from the magistrates' court.
The boy had been for years under treatment, in and out of a local mental hospital, and he was receiving treatment at the time he came before quarter sessions. There was no one before the court, as there would have been if a Clause like this were embodied in the law, to give the facts when this ideopathic epileptic pleaded guilty. There were no investigations made and no report which would have given the true picture to the chairman of quarter sessions. No one knew that the boy was an ideopathic epileptic, and he was sent to borstal on the basis of his record.
The Home Secretary, in his letter to me, says that the boy had been examined—obviously, in a great hurry, which, again, is something the new Clause is designed to prevent—but, although he had been examined by a doctor appointed by the Prison Commissioners at the court, and although he had been examined—again, presumably, in a great hurry—by the doctor in Cardiff Prison, the Home Secretary frankly admits in his letter to me that
it was not until you telephoned that the prison medical officer was made aware that this boy was an epileptic".
This is a serious case. I am sure that it is an example of many such cases throughout the country which go undiscovered. They go undiscovered precisely because the type of report called for in the new Clause is not made available. We do not know whether that boy would ever have been sent to borstal if the proper reports had been available. If there had been a probation officer's report, which would become necessary if the intention of the new Clause were accepted, clearly, other considerations would have been taken into account. If provisions such as those now proposed had existed, investigations would have been made into the boy's background and the facts would have been put before the court.
Naturally, I feel concerned that any constituent of mine may, perhaps, be in borstal when he should have been receiving hospital treatment. I feel that there is an urgent need for a Clause of this


kind because of the extreme pressure we all know to exist in dealing with the unfortunately large number of cases coming before quarter sessions.
I urge acceptance of the new Clause for a further reason. If it were accepted, the Government would have to do something about probation officers. The overworked probation officer is already crushed under the burdens he now has to carry, Undoubtedly, this new Clause would impose more. If it were accepted, the Government would have to make up their mind what they would do to improve the conditions of service of the probation officers who carry such a grievous burden, to improve their salaries and to attract more people into their splendid service.
The technical objections which the Attorney-General has raised are insufficient to justify the Government's refusal to accept the Clause. We have no idea when the Streatfeild Report will be discussed. We have no idea when, or if, legislation based upon it will be introduced. This is an opportunity to deal at least with the young people who are affected, the people who should, perhaps, be given priority. I urge that the Attorney-General should consider further the representations which have been made.

Question put and negatived.

New Clause.—(RESTRICTION OF SENTENCE OF DEATH.)

In subsection (1) of section fifty-three of the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933, as amended by subsection (3) of section nine of the Homicide Act, 1957 (which prohibits the sentence of death on a person under the age of eighteen years), for the words "eighteen years" there shall be substituted the words 'twenty-one years".—[Mr. MacColl.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. MacColl: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
This is the new Clause to which reference was made earlier in our deliberations. It was discussed in what I thought was a very good debate in Committee, helped perhaps by the fact that I did not take part in it. The discussion ended in a Division in which the proposal was defeated by only one vote. When I say that the hon. and gallant Member for Eye (Colonel J. H. Harrison) was the Whip in charge of the Government's interests in Committee, the House will realise that

no stone was left unturned in securing that the faithful attended on that occasion to support the Government.
The voting on that proposal showed the narrow division of opinion that there was on this matter in Committee. I emphasise that it was a free vote, as is our vote on this new Clause. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South-East (Miss Bacon), in speaking on the new Clause concerning corporal punishment, I speak purely as an individual. It is open to any member of the Opposition to vote as he wishes on this matter. It is largely a matter of conscience. We have had many debates in the House on capital punishment, either in the form of Motions or in the form of Bills. This is not a debate on the general issue for or against capital punishment. It is a debate on the age at which the death penalty should be enforced.
There are a number of points on which hon. Members can be agreed. First, we can agree that there must be an age limit. We do not wish to go back to the days when judges invented legal fictions and juries arrived at adverse verdicts in order to avoid the exaction of the death penalty on young children. It is a horrible blemish on the history of our country that there have been many cases in the past of young children being hanged for trivial offences. I am sure that no one would wish to go back to those days. There must be an age limit below which no one should be hanged.
Secondly, I think that everyone agrees that there is a stage in the life of a human being at which he must be said to be immature and another stage at which he must be said to be mature. Those are arbitrary distinctions. No chronological distinction can be an adequate definition or description of a degree of immaturity. It varies with the person. Nevertheless, the law cannot deal in generalities of that sort. Probably we all agree that the law must provide a specified age. Therefore, the issue before us is whether the age limit should be 18 or 21.
The Select Committee of the House which considered the question of capital punishment in 1930 reported in favour of raising the age limit to 21. That is a long time ago in our parliamentary history—more than thirty years. There have been many others, but I do not want to


waste time with a long historical departure. I want to come to the immediate problem. Since then there has been the Gowers Report, the Royal Commission on Capital Punishment of 1949 to 1953. It will be within the recollection of the House that that Royal Commission was not allowed, under its terms of reference, to consider t2he general issue for or against the death penalty, but it was allowed to consider it in respect of certain groups and 2certain types, such as women or young people.

It being Ten o'clock further consideration of the Bill, as amended, stood adjourned.

Proceedings on Government business exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. R. A. Butler.]

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee) further considered.

Mr. MacColl: The Royal Commission did consider the question of the age limit, and in its Report gave a very good, fair and balanced summary of the arguments for and against raising it. In the event, a narrow majority of the Commission were in favour of raising the age to 21. I think that it was one more than those who were for keeping it. I would not wish to hide from the House the fact that this was not a unanimous recommendation; nevertheless, it was a majority recommendation, and in the light of the recommendation of the Select Committee, earlier, it is impressive weight of informed opinion in favour of doing it.
There are arguments for saying that somebody at the age of 18 is nowadays to be regarded as grown up. At that age, people are usually bigger, heavier, and perhaps better educated than they used to be. They are considered, or were considered, as being old enough to take part in compulsory military service and, therefore, ought to be held responsible. On the other hand, there are many ways in which a minor between 18 and 21 is not considered a responsible person, and I should like to quote to the House some remarks of Mr. Gerald Gardiner on this particular question. To quote from paragraph 193, Mr. Gardiner is saying:
… as lawyers we feel in some difficulty that a person who in law is so immature and irre-

sponsible that he cannot vote, cannot own any legal estate in land, cannot give a bill of exchange, cannot surrender the term of a lease, cannot settle an action without leave of the court, cannot give a valid receipt, cannot make a will unless he is a soldier in time of war, and cannot be made bankrupt, all because he is so immature and irresponsible, should nevertheless be subject to the extreme penalty.
I think that this is a twofold question: first, whether, at the time at which the murder takes place, the young murderer is of a sufficient degree of maturity to be able to be held fully responsible for what he does, and, secondly, whether, if a murder is committed at that age, there is any likelihood of his being so changed by the time he comes to later life that he becomes a very different sort of person.
The case was quoted in Standing Committee of the two young Chicago boys who committed an extraordinarily brutal sexual murder—young lads named Leopold and Loeb. In later life one of them, when released from prison, was of a totally changed character, a man with a deep sense of religious mission who devoted himself to good works for the rest of his life.
That was a typical case, and I remember, as I was studying in Chicago shortly afterwards, the impact which it made at the time. There was world horror at this particularly revolting and horrible type of murder, and yet, looked at in the perspective of history when we see what happened, we realise that by the time this man came to the end of his life he was a very different type of person. That is one of the important sides of this question.
The other important side is whether a person under the age of 21 is of sufficient maturity to be responsible. There again, how important are my views? I am not a doctor, or psychiatrist, or an authority on these matters. I can only say that on the general balance of expert medical and psychological opinion, there was a good weight of evidence which was sufficient to impress a majority of the Royal Commission that boys in the age group between 18 and 21 were not sufficiently mature and were not sufficiently in control of their actions to be held ultimately responsible to death for the murder that they had committed.
That is not to say that many of them are not beastly or vicious characters—there is no doubt about that. We accept


already, however, the principle that those aged 17½, however vicious and beastly they may be—and there have been one or two cases in recent memory of murderers below the age of 18; certainly, the kind of murder they committed would not endear them to anyone—are held to be irresponsible as far as the death penalty goes, whereas those between the ages of 18 and 21 are not.
Two important practical arguments have been frequently deployed. The first is the problem of disposal. It has been said—I rather think that the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) said this in Committee—that if a young murderer is to be reprieved, what is to be done with him? Is he to be condemned to perpetual life incarceration? If not, what is to be done with him as an alternative to hanging?
I would make two comments on that. The first is that it is a fairly shocking confession of failure of society if we say that we must hang such a man because we cannot think how to treat him otherwise or what to do with him. The challenge to society is to find a way in which we can give him an opportunity of redeeming himself. Secondly, the problem is exaggerated because of the numbers involved. People have a view of hundreds of bloody young murderers being permanently locked up in dungeons. That is not at all the position. Many of the most dangerous murderers among young people are not hanged because, in the very nature of their violence and their complete inability to control themselves, they are held under the Homicide Act to be of diminished responsibility, or they have been found to be insane.
Therefore, some of the most difficult cases, the cases most likely permanently to be incurable, are already those who will not be hanged. If we are to hang because we cannot think what to do with the man, should we not start by hanging the insane people rather than the sane, because it is they whom there is the least likelihood of helping?
This is really a small problem. The Times of 12th December last quoted some figures, which were not up to date but which covered the period from the passing of the Homicide Act to October, 1960. Of these cases, which were from England and Wales, there were only four murderers under the age of 21. Two of

them were reprieved and, therefore, the problem of disposal remains. Two of them were executed, namely, Chandler and Forsyth. Therefore, in this comparatively long period, only two people are concerned in this problem. What I am suggesting to the House is not that this is in quantity a big problem but that the fact that it is only in quantity a small problem is no real ground for maintaining something which is, I think, inherently wrong and undesirable as is the taking of the life of these young people, however vicious they are.
It may be said, "Well, do they not deserve it? Is it not desirable as a deterrent that they should suffer this?" We have already been talking a great deal about deterrence in other contexts. What I suggest to the House is that there is no evidence at all that the death penalty is a deterrent for the youngsters; there is always the danger of competition in violence arising out of the fact that a boy does not want it to be felt that he is afraid of the death penalty, which gives the whole act, the horrible, sordid disgusting act which he does, a sort of romance about it, because by it he has defied society, and he is prepared to take the rap. It also leads to the most undesirable glorification of young boys by the Press, by public opinion, by all the campaign which is worked up in having petitions and so on, so that it is sometimes felt, as has been said also in other contexts, that really it is the murderer who is a more innocent and worthy person than the victim. The focus of romance on a young murderer, which arises from the feeling that he may have to take the long walk to the gallows, is something which is thoroughly undesirable, a thoroughly bad deterrent.
I would quote something which has been quoted before and was quoted by Mr. Gerald Gardiner, and that is the interesting fact that on the same day on which Forsyth, at 18, was hanged, Terry committed a murder when he shot the bank manager. Mr. Gardiner said at the time that he was mentioning this that no doubt Terry knew about Forsyth having been hanged. He may have been implying or have had the feeling that Terry read the newspapers. He probably knew nothing about it. But there was a quotation in a newspaper, I think in the Daily Herald, after the finishing of


Terry's trial, which said in fact that Terry and Forsyth had had a fight at a cafe in the Chiswick High Road, and made a strange comment on this, that two young men, one of whom had been hanged, the other one has not yet been dealt with, both knew the danger—

Mr. J. M. L. Prior: On a point of order. Is not this particular case of Terry under appeal at the moment?

Mr. Paget: Further to that point of order. This is legislation. When we are dealing with legislation no question of sub judice arises. We can discuss anything which is sub judice because we can legislate on that.

Mr. Weitzman: Further to that point of order. I understand that the appeal by Terry has been withdrawn and that there is no appeal pending.

Mr. Paget: It does not matter.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Sir William Anstruther-Gray): Certainly it would be a mistake that anything said in this debate should have an effect on any appeal which may be pending. It is outwith my own knowledge whether such an appeal is pending or not, but if it is, I am sure that the hon. Member who is addressing the House will take account of that fact and not proceed along the lines he is now pursuing.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. MacColl: All I can say is that if I am saying something which is in any sense improper, the newspapers I am quoting from ought to be prosecuted. I am going to make a quotation, not from the trial but from a newspaper account of the background of these two men. I have mentioned that so far from the death penalty having been a deterrent to Terry, he did know Forsyth, and must have known that Forsyth was hanged on the very day he took a gun to rob a bank.
The second quotation I wish to make is from the News of the World of last Sunday. I do not know whether or not this is true, but it is alleged by the unhappy girl in the case, writing in the News of the World, that Terry sent her a letter while the trial was taking place. I will not read the whole letter, but only one paragraph:

It seems pretty obvious what the verdict will be. I am going to be topped. But don't worry, darling, I am not afraid to die.
That is not a politician wrapping up a case and saying, "Well, of course, murderers have these romantic ideas …" and so on and so forth. It is something which appeared in a Sunday paper and, for all I know, is absolutely authentic. In that case, I have shown clearly that the fact that he was going to die was something in which he took pride.
After all, why should it be surprising that that attitude is taken by young people? We admire young men or girls who risk their lives in the Armed Forces, or who go abroad to take part in some kind of work in backward countries where they will risk death from disease, and so on. We say that is a fine thing to do and we admire them. Is not it perfectly natural that in this dreadful reversed world of crime there should be admiration for a person who goes unflinchingly to his death? It is the opinion among these immature young lads that it is a brave thing expected of a gangster and a thug, to run a risk. If, in the end, he loses, if he is to be "topped" he should go to his death like a man. That is the kind of dreadful reversed heroics which we shall perpetuate by extending the death penalty to these young and immature people between the ages of 18 and 21.
The other point is the idea that if a boy of 19 is not hanged, but one of 22 is, they will ensure that the boy of 19 carries the gun; and, therefore, we shall increase the risk of older boys persuading younger ones to act as the gun carrier. To some extent it is a curious irony that that is precisely what happened in the case of Bentley and Craig. Bentley was hanged, but Craig could not be hanged because he was under 18. The shock to a political conscience caused by that case was one of the reasons for the abolition of hanging. In the Terry case there was a boy of 16 involved—Tucker—but he did not carry the gun. The boy who carried the gun was the one of hanging age, and so I think that there is come convincing evidence that that would not happen.
It may be said—it was said in the minority view of the Royal Commission


—that the best thing to do is to leave this. Paragraph 207 states:
In our view, subject to what is said in the next sentence, the right course is to consider each case individually on its own merits and not to exclude the operation of the death penalty in all cases by a rigid and arbitrary rule related to a particular age.
I have only two comments to make on this. The first is that that is an argument for lowering the age to 15 or 16 and saying that in all cases above that where people are likely to commit murders in any numbers we leave it entirely to the discretion of the Prerogative. But—I say this with a certain amount of hesitation; I do not want to appear to be offensive, and I have not had the experience which the right hon. Gentleman has had of the great office which he discharges—that as long as we have the death penalty—this is my own view—I do not believe we can "wrap up" the grave responsibility which falls on the Secretary of State.
As to the view that the best way for this discretion to be exercised is that it should be done by one person who is accountable to public opinion, I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman exercises his discretion with the utmost humanity and wisdom. All I can say—I link this again with Forsyth—is that the shock to public opinion when Forsyth was hanged and Rogers was not hanged was enough to destroy the confidence in the workings of the discretion in this way. I think that was an illustration of the difficulty—

Mr. R. A. Butler: I thought that we were confining the debate to persons

under the age of 21. I did not think that the rest was in order.

Mr. MacColl: I may be at odds with the right hon. Gentleman. I am quoting from the Observer, which says that John Rogers was aged 20 and that Francis Forsyth was aged 18. Therefore, they were both under 21. What I am saying is that the idea of leaving this terrible responsibility to the Secretary of State of picking which youngster shall be hanged and which shall not, which is a horrible responsibility to place on any man, does not work in a way to create public confidence. I do not believe that we can rely on it as an adequate safeguard. I think it is unjust to the Secretary of State that we should do so. Consequently, I think that Parliament should take the responsibility—and not leave it to the Secretary of State to do the dirty work—by saying that in no case where the person is under 21 will we exact the death penalty and that the case of a person over 21 is a different question altogether.
Therefore, I feel that we ought to take this opportunity, not of tackling the whole problem of the death penalty, vexed and complicated as it is within the problems of morality and conscience which it raises, but that in this small field, which deals with perhaps two or three persons or fewer a year, we should firmly accept responsibility before public opinion for saying that we wish to make it a firm rule that the age should be raised to 21 and do not wish to leave the discretion to the Secretary of State.

Mr. Paget: It seems to me that this is a moderate demand and one which should be accepted at this stage. My hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) has covered the ground very fully, but I want to emphasise two of the points that he made.
The first point is that hanging, the death penalty, the fame which goes with the death penalty, is attractive to some people. It is attractive to the type of rather unbalanced person who can commit murder. It should be realised that the average person could no more commit murder than act as hangman. We are dealing with a small minority, and it is particularly to the young that this sort of fame is attractive.
Of course, this sort of attraction has been known as long as we have known history. On the day that Alexander the Great was born, Herostratus burnt down the temple of Artemis at Ephesus, one of Seven Wonders of the World, in order that his name might be remembered for ever. I think that it was Voltaire who observed that his name was indeed remembered, while we do not know the name of the man who built that great edifice.
The fame of murderers! If we took a census throughout this country, far more people would know the name of Dr. Crippen than would probably know the name of Mr. Asquith, who was Prime Minister at the time. That is the sort of level of fame that we are creating for murderers. It is that type of fame which is particularly attractive to young people, to immature people, to people who have been brought up to watch the Westerns and the bandits on television, to see the romance of crime, the fame of Billy the Kid, and various killers.
There is just one case that we should remember. It is the case of two young men, one named Fox and the other Rhodes. Fox had committed what I think most of us would have found to be a particularly unattractive murder. He strangled his mother for the insurance and lit the room to make it appear like fire. When he was in the condemned cell a young criminal called Rhodes, who was in the same prison, had, amongst his chores, to clean out the death cell while Fox was at exercise. Fox was

the famous man. He was the man whose picture was in the paper—the man about whom articles had been written. He became young Rhodes' hero, and Rhodes determined that he would be as famous as Fox.
When Rhodes came out of prison he waylaid a perfectly innocent girl on Blackheath. He struck her down from behind and killed her. He went into that death cell delighted with himself. Now he was no longer the insignificant man who cleaned out the cell, but the famous man who was going to be hanged. And he was hanged. I am not considering him. I am considering the unhappy girl on Blackheath who died because we had a death penalty.
I am also considering the bank guard at Worthing. As I see this, Terry could not stand the fame of his friends Forsyth and Harris. These two had become famous men, but nobody knew of Victor Terry. He felt the urge to be famous too, and life was quite a small price to pay for it. One can find many other examples. Television may have something to do with it, but this is far more ancient than television—the attraction, the fame, and the thought in this sort of mind that death seems a small price to pay for such celebrity. If the right hon. Gentleman cares for the victims, then, at least in this young class, these immature minds, among those who find attraction—and I say "attraction" deliberately—in the death penalty and the fame which goes with it, I say take that attraction out of murder and we will save a good many victims.
10.30 p.m.
The second point—and again it is a point which I apologise for repeating, because it has been made by my hon. Friend but I desire to emphasise it—is the terrible element of the defeatism of killing a child of 18. With our resources, with our knowledge, with our understanding, we are defeated by a child of that age, and the only solution we can find is to destroy it. The human body is a rather wonderful thing. Should we destroy it, save for real necessity? Should we really take the attitude: we can do nothing with this child, with this thing which is so young, except to take it and kill it?
Consider for a moment the girl Valerie Salter, the girl of whom Mr. Justice Stable spoke those most moving words when he said: "Your heart is very young." She was 18. She loved this man Terry. He took her to Scotland. He could as well have taken her to the bank. If he had taken her to the bank, like Bentley she would have been guilty of murder, and capital murder. As the judge said, her heart is very young, but her neck is old enough to stretch. Do we really want that sort of thing? Do we need it for our safety?
My hon. Friend has mentioned the case of Loeb who was guilty of a crime which shocked the world perhaps more than any crime, certainly in my lifetime, a murder for a thrill, in Chicago. Loeb at 18 was as vicious as a child of 18 can be. Is that really vicious? It is too immature for viciousness to have formed. He has turned out to be a character who has rendered great service to the educational system of America, and he is leading a life which is admirable and devoted to public service.
If one wanted another example, one could read the confessions of St. Augustine, for he was another of these criminal 18-year-olds. Are we so defeatist as to say when dealing with a child of this age that we can do nothing except deliberately to destroy this work of God? I do not believe it. My difficulty in talking to the right hon. Gentleman is that I know that he does not believe it either. That is the difficulty of advancing the intellectual argument to the right hon. Gentleman. We know that he appreciates it. We know that he knows as well as we do that capital punishment is no deterrent to murder. With all the statistics, all the evidence, all the facts, he knows that this is unnecessary. He knows that this public killing is but a human sacrifice to the demand of the mob. He who makes and orders this sacrifice is sacrificing to a god he does not believe in, for he does not believe in the efficacy of what he does. That is what we are against. Pontius Pilate washed his hands, but all humanity since has known that those hands were not clean and never could be clean. The right hon. Gentleman's hands will not be cleaned by washing.

Mr. John Hobson: The hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget)

has advanced the whole of his argument on the basis that the death penalty for capital murder as we now have it in our law is no deterrent, but that is not the question which is at issue. We are confined in this new Clause to saying whether it should be applicable to those between the ages of 18 and 21, and whether generally the death penalty for capital murder is or is not a deterrent is not in issue.
The other basis of his argument was that if we take a human life, particularly a young one under the age of 21, we must consider only what is the proper treatment for that particular life in those particular circumstances, but the whole basis of the argument in favour of the death penalty must be—must it not?—not the effect upon the person to whom it is to be applied because, of course, it is ultimately the end of his life, but the effect upon others who are likely to be deterred from crime. We come back to the great problem of the criminal law as to whether or not it is justifiable for the State, for the protection of the individuals in the State, to take a life, not for the benefit of that man whose life is taken, but for the protection of society itself.
The hon. and learned Member began his speech upon the thesis that those who are between the ages of 17 and 21 are likely to commit murder because of the notoriety they will receive from the fact that they are most likely to be hanged. A more fantastic proposition for those who have ever seen or had anything to do with the ordinary murderer, capital or otherwise. I find it difficult to imagine. It may well be that there are rare exceptional cases who think that their only hope of ultimate immortality is to commit a murder, but the vast majority of people who embark upon murders have no such thoughts in their minds. Their determination is that they will not be caught and, motivated by greed, or lust or avarice, they embark upon a crime, not for the purpose of being caught and hanged, but in order to achieve their object and escape.
If it was likely that many people would commit murder for the purpose of being hanged, it would be a very sensible thing to say that they should not be hanged, but, if one looks at the majority of cases and not at exceptional cases, one will find inevitably that the young thug between


the ages of 17 and 21 who embarks upon a course that leads him to murder does so deliberately, with his eyes open and from the worst of motives.

Mr. Abse: In discussion of a previous Clause I indicated that 40 per cent. of those who committed murder committed suicide before they could be hanged. How can it be suggested the murderer has such rationality as the hon. and learned Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Hobson) is attributing to him when he completely sacrifices his life by committing suicide rather than attempting to evade the consequences?

Mr. Hobson: Of course, the varieties of murderers are as infinite as Cleopatra or Heinz's 57 varieties. There are a great number of unbalanced people who are prepared to take their own life and who often, as a side-issue to taking it, take the life of another in order to take him or her with them. But very few of those who commit suicide are those who embark on what are now capital murders.
We are talking now only of capital murders which are those committed in pursuance of theft or in order to evade arrest, or those of policemen or warders in the execution of their duty. The punishment for such murders is intended to, and does in fact, operate chiefly upon people like Terry and the others who embark upon crimes such as gangsters and young thugs embark upon.

Mr. Paget: I entirely agree, of course, that the number of people who commit murder just for the thrill of being murderers is a small proportion, although it is probably larger than many people realise. As for the other class to whom the hon. and learned Gentleman referred, those who commit murder in the belief that they will get away with it, they do not think that they are going to be hanged.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I think there is a tendency for the debate to go beyond the Clause being discussed, which is purely one of age.

Mr. Hobson: I am much obliged, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I was submitting to the House that those between the ages of 18 and 21 who embark on a crime which involves them in a conviction for

capital murder are those who have done so with their eyes open from motives usually of lust, greed or avarice.

Mr. Michael Foot: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hobson: I am sorry, but I have given way sufficiently already.
The only question before the House is whether those persons should be in a different position from those who are over 21 years of age or whether they should be in the same position as those who are now under 18 years of age. I am bound to say that it is the experience of those who practise in the criminal courts that there is quite an astonishing maturity in many of those who are now convicted of crimes of violence. One frequently finds that the leader of the gang is, in fact, not 18 but 14, 15 or 16, and people of that very tender age do with great deliberation lead others into committing crimes of great violence.

Mr. Abse: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman want to hang them too?

Mr. Hobson: Certainly not, but we have to look, as we always must look in questions of capital murder, at the deterrent effect. While on the one side there may be the exceptional youth between the ages of 18 and 21 who will commit the crime for the notoriety that it will bring him, I am convinced that there are a very large majority of youths who are far more normal and rational and who would never embark upon a course of conduct which they thought was likely to bring them to the gallows, and that the majority of youths are frightened and are deterred from embarking upon such crimes merely by the fact that they know that to do so is likely to lead to their forfeiting their own lives at such an early age.
We have, as the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) pointed out, still the protection of the discretion of the Home Secretary in recommending a reprieve in any particular case of a person between the ages of 18 and 21 convicted of capital murder, who is suffering from either an abnormality of mind sufficient to require his conviction for manslaughter or diminished responsibility to be the proper verdict, or for some other reason such as immaturity of mind which


makes it improper or wrong that he should be punished.
We come back again to the very great problem of the difference between the capital sentence and what is to be done to a person who commits such crimes.
10.45 p.m.
I certainly appeared once for a young man of 19 who murdered his aunt in circumstances of the most appalling and terrible bestiality. He did so in circumstances that would arouse horror in the breast of anybody who heard that case. His defence of diminished responsibility was not accepted. He had stolen money, but the jury, perhaps, took a merciful view and did not convict him of capital murder though they might well have done so. Therefore, the question of his being hanged did not arise. But if it had done so the alternatives were that either he should have been hanged had he been convicted of capital murder or as those appearing for the defence, the psychiatrists and doctors said was the likely course, that he was so dangerous that it would have been unsafe to release him in under ten or twelve years even if he had not been convicted of capital murder and inevitably, because he was unbalanced, he would, after incarceration for ten or twelve years, knowing other people had been released, ultimately go mad and spend the rest of his life in Broadmoor.
The choice, therefore, in many of these cases is not between handing a man his life so that he may ultimately be able to make use of it or hanging him, but also of condemning him to a living death for a long period of time and ultimately sending him for the rest of his life to Broadmoor. This is a matter which raises the deepest feelings and deepest anxieties, but if, as a determent, we are to retain the death penalty for those who are over 21 in these cases which are now capital, I personally can see no reason why those who are mature and have reached the age of 18 and have assumed most of the obligations in the State except a few technical, legal ones, should not, if the Home Secretary can find no reason otherwise, suffer the same fate as those who are over 21.

Sir George Benson: I am pleased that my name is not attached to this Clause. It is rather shameful. It

asks that we should cease to hang adolescents. In Denmark there has been no execution for 67 years, in Norway for 85, in Belgium for 95 and in Holland for 101 years, and here are we in the Labour Party asking that the death penalty should not be imposed on adolescents. I suppose that my hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench can justify the Clause on the ground that it is the best they can hope to get out of the party opposite, but it is a humiliating thing when one thinks of what has been done on the Continent and of what we are asking for now. Although it may be humiliating to this side of the House, it is a disgrace to the other side.

Mr. Peter Kirk: I find myself in a slightly difficult position tonight. I am strongly opposed to the death penalty and always have been. I agree with the speeches of the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) and the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) but I also agree with the main theme of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Hobson) and the point which the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Sir G. Benson) was making the other way round. I can see no distinction between under and over 21 years of age. To me the execution of anyone is so repellent and useless that I see no point in any attempt to distinguish between old and young. Though I fully appreciate the reasons why the Opposition have tabled the Clause and understand why there was this discussion in Committee, I am not convinced that this is the right way to do it.

Miss Bacon: Perhaps I can put one thing right. The Bill deals with the under-21s. It is necessary for the House to consider whether or not hanging should be one of the penalties for people under 21. It would have been out of order on the Bill to have extended the Clause.

Mr. Kirk: I quite appreciate the hon. Lady's point. This is the extent of my difficulty. I think that the entire Clause is out of place in the Bill. We want to find some way of doing away with the terrible business altogether. I have put forward ideas in the House on this subject previously. On the Third Reading of the Homicide Bill I said that what I wanted to see was a Home Secretary


who had the courage not to carry out the duty which was unfortunately laid upon him. In logic I cannot see how we can pass a Clause which abolishes the death penalty for those under 21 and retains it for those over 21. I cannot support any action which keeps the death penalty. I certainly shall not vote against the Clause. I find it difficult in logic to vote for it. Therefore, I shall not vote at all.

Mr. V. Yates: If that argument were pursued, we should never have been able to abolish the death penalty in the case of children aged 9, 10, 11 or 12. It is desirable that it should be completely abolished.

Mr. Kirk: The hon. Gentleman misunderstands the point. Sir Samuel Romilly, when he brought forward a Bill abolishing the death penalty in those cases, brought forward a Bill designed for that purpose alone and discussed on that basis. This is not such a Bill.
I welcome the main provisions of the Bill. I am sorry that it does not go further in certain respects, and I believe that many hon. Members are. I do not think that a discussion of something which I regard as completely separate morally, legally and in every other way, comes in on the Bill. This is my difficulty. I certainly cannot vote against the Clause. I find it difficult to vote for it. I hope that the Home Secretary, whom I regard as one of the most liberal and humane we have had for a long time, will bear in mind the great strength of feeling that there is on this issue. I ask him to remember that the Kingdom of Belgium has never officially abolished the death penalty but has simply stopped using it. He has it within his power to do the same. He is the only Home Secretary we have.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will bear in mind the feelings which have been expressed. Despite what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington said about deterrents, the Worthing bank murder occurred within two hours of an execution of people of much the same age. My right hon. Friend should bear all this in mind and draw the natural conclusion from it. I hope that very soon we shall be given an opportunity to discuss the whole question of the death

penalty. Then I would find myself in the Lobby with those who want to abolish it altogether. I do not think this is the right way, and therefore I shall not vote.

Mr. J. J. Mendelson: In fairness to the Home Secretary, it ought to be said that it is not correct that he could in the long run, while the death penalty is still the law of the land, abolish it administratively by never allowing it to be applied. That statement ought not to go out from the House uncorrected.

Mr. M. Foot: The hon. Member for Gravesend (Mr. Kirk) is an opponent of capital punishment generally, but I think he is somewhat over-scrupulous in the objections he voiced in saying that it is wrong for the Opposition to table the new Clause. After all, if the hon. Gentleman is an opponent of capital punishment, surely he wishes to see the horror mitigated. The effect of passing the Clause would be to mitigate the horror of capital punishment in this country, and indeed to mitigate the horror as it affects some people who might be regarded as the most inoffensive sufferers under the capital punishment law. I therefore cannot see how any opponent of capital punishment can hesitate to support this new Clause.
It may perfectly well be said that they would prefer the Government to introduce a debate on the whole subject—that, I can understand—but I cannot understand how those hon. Members opposite who oppose capital punishment—and we know that there are several hon. Members opposite who are very sincerely and passionately opposed to it—can possibly fail to vote for this new Clause. Indeed, it would be quite contrary to the traditions of this House. This is a question of capital punishment. This Clause would decide whether two or three persons—not a large number—between 18 and 21 years of age will be hanged or not. That is what people will vote about. Therefore, I believe that every hon. Member opposite who is opposed to capital punishment is under an obligation to vote for the Clause.
Moreover, although, as has already been said, we are not debating the general issue of capital punishment, it is the case that those who are opposing this new Clause have a more difficult case to


present than if they were opposing the general case against capital punishment. They have to prove something more. I am opposed to capital punishment. I do not believe that we will deter a single murderer—that may be an exaggeration; we may deter one or two, although I do not think so—but, surely, if capital punishment is a deterrent at all then, on the argument advanced by its supporters, we will deter fewer people in this age category than in any other category, because between these ages people are likely to calculate least.
The hon. and learned Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Hobson) shakes his head. Does he say that those between 18 and 21 will calculate more than those over 21 as to whether, if they take an action, they will be caught and, therefore, calculate, because of capital punishment, whether or not to do it? Does he think that those over 21 years are likely to calculate more, or not? Will he answer that?

Mr. Hobson: I shook my head only because all the statistics relating to those between the ages of 17 and 21 show a great increase in the incidence of crimes of violence. These are 5½ and 11 times the previous rate. People of that age group are the very people who are now embarking on crimes of violence, and should be deterred.

Mr. Foot: But there are more crimes committed by those over 21 than by those under that age, are there not?

Mr. Hobson: There are more of them.

Mr. Foot: Of course. There is no use the hon. and learned Gentleman laughing as if it were of little account. He has presented the most startling proposition. He says that the people under 21 calculate just as much as do those over 21 about whether they will carry a gun, about whether or not they may be involved in this situation. I should have thought it common sense to say that the person who is less mature calculates less than the one who is more mature. That is not a startling proposition.
If we take all the cases that have come into the newspapers—Bentley and all the others—they were immature people. It is, therefore, very foolish for the hon. and learned Gentleman to propose that we should hang a few

more of these youngsters—because that is what he does propose, and will vote for, and ask his hon. Friends to vote for. What he has to prove—and so far there has not been any attempt from that side to do so—is that those under 21 are not less likely to be deterred than those over 21.
I believe that common sense says that the younger people are the more likely—they will not calculate at all. That is the very reason why we fix a minimum age at all. All the hon. and learned Gentleman's arguments are arguments for reducing the age limit to 12, or even below that. I do not know whether the Home Secretary will present the argument, but no argument has yet been presented from the other side as to why we should proceed with the hanging of those under 21—the very few involved—not a single argument at all. All that they have done is to use the general argument in favour of capital punishment without trying to distinguish at all.
11.0 p.m.
I agree, and I am sure all my hon. Friends agree, with my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Sir G Benson) that it is a shame that we should have to make such a proposition at all, but if we have to make such a proposition surely it is obvious and must be obvious to the Home Secretary that the people under 21 are less likely to calculate than people over 21—if, indeed, anybody calculates in these respects.
I am sure that the Home Secretary, who has this appalling responsibility of exercising the Royal Prerogative, has had greater difficulty in deciding what he is going to do about a person under 21 than about persons over 21. Does the Home Secretary deny that, when he has had to exercise this Prerogative, about which he is so secretive towards the House of Commons—I will come to that in a moment—the question of whether the person is or is not under 21 comes into the consideration? He would not deny that, would he? Of course it comes in. Why? Precisely because there is a difference, or he thinks there is a difference, because the person under 21 is less responsible, less mature. If the Home Secretary nods his head and says "Yes", that when he exercises the


Royal prerogative he draws a distinction between those over 21 and those under that age, why does he not draw it in the Bill? If he admits there is a difference, then he is admitting that there should be a distinction. He is saying in his own mind that people under a certain age are less mature than the ones over that certain age. So he is admitting that there is a basis for the argument. He may say that people under 21 have committed as vicious crimes as people over 21, but he is admitting there is a distinction, and, therefore, it is no good his hon. Friends saying there is no such distinction.
The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington dismissed entirely the argument put by my hon. and learned Friend that the show of false glamour used by the Press to describe murderers had effect in encouraging or enticing or twisting young people to become murderers themselves. How very foolish of the hon. and learned Member to be so dogmatic in these matters. He does not know what persuades people to become murderers. He would have to go into the matter very deeply indeed to know. Indeed, if we murder all the murderers we shall never discover what is the truth. The hon. and learned Gentleman does not know, but he comes down here and lays down dogmatically what he says and what his hon. Friends who have studied the matter have said. I would guarantee that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) has studied murders and murdering and the whole business of crime even more than the hon. and learned Gentleman, but the hon. and learned Gentleman lays down the rule absolutely dogmatically. He says that the Press has nothing to do with it.
I am not saying who is right or wrong in this argument, but the hon, and learned Gentleman is so dogmatic in saying all this false glamour has nothing to do with it when a murderer goes into court and says, "I am not copying Dillinger at all". The hon. and learned Member says that has nothing to do with and could not possibly cause murder. He is so very dogmatic about it, and because of his dogmatism he will send someone to his death. Next week or the week after maybe some boy will go

into court and say that he was not trying to be a second or third Dillinger. It may not be the real reason he committed the murder; maybe it is the real reason. But the hon. and learned Gentleman is going to vote for the death of that person. The difference between him and my hon. Friend is that the hon. and learned Gentleman is dogmatic, and says, "Because I know what is right, I am going to commit these people to death". My hon. Friend says, "Because I do not know what is the cause of these murders, I am not going to exact the extreme penalty".
Which is the right decision? Which is the wise decision? The person who is so certain and dogmatic as to say, "Because I know I am right I am going to send these boys of 18 to 21 to their deaths", or the person who says, "Because I do not know the answer, I should prefer to send them to a prison to see whether they can be reformed."?
The hon. and learned Gentleman says, "Well, I will take an alternative argument"—as if people should be allowed to take alternative arguments in matters of this kind. He says, "It may be that sending them to Broadmoor is even more terrible than killing them." If that is so, he had better get it broadcast in the newspapers; it might be a more terrible deterrent. He ought to be more careful in what he is doing. We might have another Bentley case very soon, and hon. Gentlemen opposite who vote against this new Clause will be responsible for sending to his death some poor miserable, twisted youth who, it may be, knew what he was doing, or, it may be, did not. There is not a single hon. Member who would be able to decide whether that person was guilty in the sense that we mean guilt.
It has been said by some—indeed, it has been quoted from the Report of the Royal Commission—that, maybe because of the difficulties in deciding in these matters, it is better that we should leave it to the Home Secretary to decide, that we should leave him to exercise the Royal prerogative. I agree with everything that was said about that by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton. If the Leader of the House could have a free vote in this matter, I believe that he would vote for this Clause. I think that intellectually


the right hon. Gentleman must be convinced. I believe that anybody who has studied the facts must be convinced intellectually of the case against capital punishment.
Certainly I am not prepared to put any faith in the exercise of the Royal prerogative by the right hon. Gentleman. Like most of the rest of the world, I cannot make head or tail of it. I cannot discover from looking at a case whether it was right or wrong. The right hon. Gentleman does not understand it. I know that he has a difficult job and it must be very anxious for him. The more anxious it is, the better, so far as I am concerned. I hope that it causes him extreme anxiety, because probably the only reason we shall get rid of capital punishment in this country—although we ought to have done it years ago—is the anxiety of Home Secretaries.
It is a curious thing that when they are in office most Home Secretaries are in favour of capital punishment, but when they are out of office they are opposed to it. Why? Because when they are out of office, they are exercising their judgment. When they are in office they are so much subdued by their lives and the pressures on them by permanent secretaries, and all the other matters which come in to affect their decisions, that they cannot decide. It is all very well for the right hon. Gentleman to laugh about it. Does he mean to say that he makes up his mind about these matters without allowing anything else to enter into his mind? If so, he must be a remarkable specimen of humanity.

Mr. R. A. Butler: The hon. Gentleman was exhibiting considerable humanity in his speech. My smiles were those of sympathy with that rather than criticism.

Mr. Foot: Anybody who can sort that out ought to be Prime Minister. What does it mean? It means nothing.
We can judge only by outward events. Some people are hanged when it would seem that in some cases even more vicious murderers are let off. One cannot discover why. All we can discover is from cases where we know that innocent people were hanged, such as the case of Timothy Evans. Even in that case the Home Office will not give a reprieve after years. It will not say that Timothy Evans was innocent, though

everybody else in the House believes he was. And why?—For reasons of State. I say that reasons of State also influence the decisions that the Home Secretary makes in exercising the Royal prerogative. That is one of the reasons why some of us can have no faith in it whatsoever.
I believe that there is no sound case which can be put against the new Clause. There is no argued case which can be presented against the proposal made from this side of the House. The reason the Government are opposing the proposal is that there is a general mood. They say there is a wave of crime. They have all the irrelevant figures quoted by the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) in an earlier debate, and they say "This is a time when we are all reading in the newspapers about a wave of crime and brutal murders, some of them committed by young people under 21. In the circumstances of this general mood it would be wrong for the Home Office to make a retreat."
I believe that is the real reason why an intelligent and sometimes humane Minister like the Home Secretary refuses to accept the Clause. That is a quite improper reason for condemning a few miserable youths to death. The case must be argued in detail. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman has not merely to put the general case again capital punishment, although I doubt whether he believes in that particularly after some years of trying to administer the Homicide Act. He has to do something much more than that. He has to show that it is necessary for the safety of the country, for the well-being of the country and for the protection of the people that we should continue with the process of hanging every year two or three people between these ages even though we know when we examine the facts that in pretty well every case it can be decided for certain that the threat of capital punishment would not have deterred—because the crimes have been committed even with the threat of capital punishment in any case.
So it is a much more difficult case that the Home Secretary has to present than the general case against capital punishment. I should have thought that in trying to show that he is a humane Home Secretary this is the very smallest


concession that the right hon. Gentleman might have been willing to give, particularly when the whole of the weight of the arguments presented in the House today and in the Standing Committee has been on one side and the only argument on the other side has been the general mood, a vague argument which is not relevant to the case at all.

Vice-Admiral John Hughes Hallett: I had not intended to intervene in the debate, but I am drawn to do so after some of the observations of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot). He repeatedly said that the Home Secretary would have to show this or show that. I should have thought that the onus of proof was on those who wish to change the law, not on those who wish to retain it as it is.
Much of this debate has been taken up by hon. Members who are either sincere and convinced abolitionists or lawyers. I venture to give the opinion of one who is neither. It seems to me that to justify the Clause it would be necessary to show one of three things.
It might be argued that since the age of 18 was fixed as the minimum age at which persons could suffer capital punishment there had been a considerable decrease in the number of murders committed by people between 18 and 21. Unfortunately, the precise reverse is the case.
Alternatively, it would be open to the sponsors and supporters of the Clause to try to show that since the age was fixed persons between 18 and 21 have for some reason become less responsible for their actions than they were at that time. There again, we know that the reverse is the case. We know that it is a scientific fact that young people are maturing physically materially earlier than was the case ten or twelve years ago. I certainly think well enough of our education system to believe that they are also educationally further advanced. Consequently, as I have said, a young person between the ages of 18 and 21 can be expected today to bear the consequences for his acts more and not less than was the case some years ago.

11.15 p.m.

Mr. John Diamond: Can the hon. Member adduce any evidence to show that the adolescent is today mentally more mature than formerly, and also to show that he is emotionally more mature?

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I cannot think so badly of the Education Act, 1944, introduced by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, and of the work done by the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), as to believe that there has been no advance in mental maturity. I am certain that there has been an advance. Whether there has been an advance in emotional maturity is a matter of opinion.
The only other argument that might be advanced, but which has not been put forward, is that there is some alternative punishment which is equally, if not more, effective. One of the strongest arguments against this change at the present time is the widespread belief among young people of the kind who are, unfortunately, liable to commit violent crimes, that imprisonment for life means incarceration only for four or five years. That may be quite untrue. None the less, I find, in talking to some of my wilder young constituents, that there is a fixed belief among the young toughs in the country that if they "lay on", as they call it, "an act of contrition", they will be out in four or five years. There is, unfortunately, no means of disproving that in a short period of time.
I see no grounds for changing the law at present, and I repeat that the onus lies on those who wish to change it to prove that it should be changed.

Mr. Mendelson: The hon. Member for Gravesend (Mr. Kirk) said he found himself in considerable difficulty. One can well understand the nature of the difficulty, because, being opposed to capital punishment in general, he cannot see how one is justified in voting for the Clause.
I support this Clause, and not only for the reasons that have been advanced so far. I believe that it is a useful and important Clause in its own right. I want to link this with something said by my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot). I think that he was


correct in assembling some of the factors that must be the basis of the Home Secretary's decision when advising on the Royal prerogative. Certainly, age must come into it, but I do not go along with my hon. Friend when he says that the public mood is something that ought not to weigh with the Home Secretary when making up his mind. That is asking the impossible. I cannot conceive of any important act of State by any responsible Minister where he does not, in some way, either consciously or subconsciously, take into account the public mood.
There is a very good reason why the hon. Member for Gravesend, as there is for me and other hon. Members, should support this Clause, and that is the need to advance step by step. It is perfectly true—and it must be admitted in serious debate—that there are quite a number of serious people in the country—not only those who never take time to think about these matters—who are gravely concerned about the development of crime. Because of that the choice of the reformer, as it always has been, is between advancement all the way, or most of the way, at once, and advancement step by step.
It seemed to me that the hon. and learned Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Hobson) was not accepting a great deal of the reports of recent research. Unhappily, most of that research has not been done in this country. We ought to be much more advanced in organised research into these matters, bearing in mind our standing in other fields of science and learning. Most of the research has been done in other countries—some of it in Scandinavia—and, as the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, it proves quite conclusively that there is a difference in the approach and the character of the younger criminal compared with the older one.
It is important that my hon. Friends and some hon. Gentlemen opposite should not be deterred by the consideration that perhaps there is something wrong in asking for special consideration for people in this category when they would like to do something which would bring about a change in the law in general.
When we consider the reasons why research has proved that there is a difference in the make-up of the young offender, we find that the main difference lies in the anticipation of the consequences of crime. I was rather surprised to hear the hon. and learned Gentleman speak so lightly about this irrational element in the make-up of the criminal. That irrational element, which is in the make-up of most murderers, if not all, is particularly present in the make-up of the young offender. There is, therefore, an additional reason why we should be particularly careful about whether to apply this final assumption to people between the ages of eighteen and twenty-one.
My next point concerns another consideration applying to the young criminal. The chance and the hope of reclaiming him for society is somewhat greater than in the case of a confirmed criminal of middle age. A good deal of research is being carried on at Cambridge University, and at other universities. I have recently heard that some of the most interesting results might be precisely in that direction; that as the years go by one might, as a result of these researches, know more—and the State needs to know a great deal more, and so do hon. Members—about the chances of reclaiming a criminal. At any rate, on present results there might be more hope of doing that for the younger offender than for the old and confirmed criminal.
I should like to refer to an intervention I made when the hon. Member for Gravesend said that it might be possible for the Home Secretary, through his Department, after conviction, more or less administratively gradually to abolish at any rate the application of capital punishment. I dissented from that point of view and I was asked by some of my hon. Friends why I did so. There is great difficulty in putting the entire responsibility for bringing about this change on one Minister. There is great difficulty with public opinion.
I do not regard it as in any way dishonourable for the Home Secretary to have some regard for the point of view of people who are his supporters in the country, not in any petty or small political way, or when he has to use his judgment before advising the head of a State,


but in other ways. If the advance and reform in a serious matter of this kind is carried on in the wrong way, if the wrong steps are taken, there might be a set-back.
I share the assumption of my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale and other hon. Members that the Home Secretary is moving towards a solution to this problem, to which he has to make a contribution, as all of us are trying to do, that might be in the direction of reforming the law in such a way that would allow us to get on without capital punishment, but I think that we ought to share the burden with him. I submit that one effective way of sharing it is to support a Clause of this kind, because it is our task to educate public opinion. If we are satisfied that on the results of inquiries and past experience of the criminal code there is no real correlation—and, therefore, no effective deterrent—between capital punishment and the sort of motives that produce murder, we ought to give a lead and we ought to give that lead jointly.
I urge all hon. Members who feel that they can support this Clause to be convinced that they would be making a useful contribution because growing opinion in this House has an effect on public opinion. For these reasons, I am very glad to support the new Clause.

Sir D. Glover: Like my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East (Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett), I had no intention of intervening in this debate, but many experts have spoken and, like him, I should like to put the point of view of the ordinary man-in-the-street.
I do not think that any hon. Member, whichever line he takes on capital punishment, takes satisfaction in it one way or the other. It is a dreadful subject to contemplate and I am certain that everyone would like to do away with it; but I am sincerely convinced that it acts as a deterrent. It is, perhaps, not unreasonable to take the point of view of the general mass of the public into consideration. In discussions in this House hon. Members tend to think that people in the country have not thought this matter out for themselves. I have thought it out in the same way as I think a great many others

have done. I am certain that capital punishment would be a deterrent to me and I believe that the great mass of people think that it would be a deterrent to them.
We are not, however, debating capital punishment but the age of responsibility. That is what this Clause is about. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend (Mr. Kirk) about his difficulty. I am in no difficulty, because I shall oppose this Clause, but I see his difficulty. This is not a Clause dealing with capital punishment. The new Clause says that the age of responsibility should be raised. I think that hon. Members opposite are a little illogical about this. I am not certain that I am on firm ground here—they produce so many policy documents—but a few months ago there was a strong move to bring the voting age down to 18. If that is the view of the Socialist Party, surely it is its considered opinion that a person between the ages of 18 and 21 is just as responsible as a person of 21 and over.

Miss Bacon: The document to which the hon. Member has referred was not a policy document of the Labour Party.

Sir D. Glover: It was certainly a document from the Labour Party.

Miss Bacon: No.

Mr. Weitzman: Mr. Weitzman rose—

Sir D. Glover: No, I shall not give way again.
We say that a boy of 18 is old enough to do National Service in the Armed Forces. Presumably, we think that at that age he is fully-grown and a man of judgment. In this Clause hon. Members are trying to say that something which has been the law for many years should now be altered when statistics show that, in fact, people are maturing earlier, that they are "older" and more responsible at an earlier age. That should, therefore, be an argument for bringing the age down, not for raising it. If we are dealing with the whole question of capital punishment, then I think we can bring powerful arguments both ways, but I support my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend in saying that the Bill has nothing to do with capital punishment, that this new Clause is really out of context, and that I have no difficulty in opposing it.

Mr. MacColl: One of the things which the Bill does among others is to amend the Children and Young Persons Act. It is that Act and not the Criminal Justice Act which, in fact, fixes the minimum age for the death penalty. Therefore, I think that it is absolutely in order and right that any Bill that seeks to amend the Children and Young Persons Act must seek to amend this Clause.

11.30 p.m.

Mr. Diamond: I imagine that every hon. Member has had the same experience as I have had in canvassing for election. When doing so we come across one particular, rather stubborn voter and we try very hard to secure, if we can, the vote of that voter. We waste perhaps a good deal of time concentrating upon him. I am out to get the vote of the hon. Member for Gravesend (Mr. Kirk). I set myself that challenge because if I cannot convince the hon. Member, who is in favour of the abolition of capital punishment as I am, on all grounds that it is right, necessary, responsible and inevitable for him to vote on this matter if it goes to a vote, to come into the Lobby with us in favour of the Clause, then I really doubt whether I am justified in being here at all.
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree with me that we are dealing here with a Bill which affects those between the ages of 18 and 21 and that we have to say either that we are to leave the matter as it is or that we are going to alter it. Neither he nor I wish to escape any of our responsibilities. We are not going to challenge the whole of Parliamentary procedure by discussing the matter not on a particular Bill, but on the generic subject of hanging as a whole, because we cannot do it that way. We cannot challenge the whole of Parliamentary procedure, and, therefore, he and I are face to face with this problem.
Is the hon. Gentleman going to walk out of his responsibility, or is he going into one or other of the Division Lobbies as an hon. Member, as a courageous Member, as a man? I suggest to him that he cannot evade his responsibility for a variety of reasons. We know that if this Clause is carried two or three young persons

will be living in a year's time who would otherwise be dead. Maybe the number will be greater, but we know that that is the likely figure. I am not going to take the responsibility of washing my hands of the matter and say, "It is all too difficult for me. I am an ordinary back bencher. Let the Government and the Opposition Front Bench decide." I do not take that view.
I see two or three potentially valuable lives at stake, and I am going to vote for the retention of those lives, because I believe that it is in the general good and the good of humanity as a whole. I invite the hon. Member for Gravesend to picture three young men—hooligans, or however he likes to describe them—who will be living or dead in a year's time, dependent, perhaps, on whether he votes in the Lobby or does not vote at all.
It has been properly said that what we are discussing tonight is not the general principle, but the application of a general principle. It is a most debatable point whether at 17 and below a person shall not hang but at 17 and over he shall hang. This is where we have drawn the line, and it is clearly a most debatable point. If there is any argument in favour of the abolition of the death penalty it is at this point that it is surely most easy to persuade those who are persuadable and public opinion as a whole that at all events, if we cannot do away with capital punishment completely, we can raise men's horizons just an inch or two at a time.
This is the point that we are discussing and it is for two major reasons that I appeal to the hon. Member to join us in the Lobby when we come to vote. The first is, as I am sure he will admit, that he and I are partly responsible for some of the murders that have taken place. He and I and all the rest of us and, with the greatest respect, you, Mr. Speaker, all accept a cultural pattern and a standard of society in which violence is acceptable. Violence is portrayed in the cinema, and I was a cinema managing director who put on violent films in many of my cinemas because they paid me, because people came to see them. This is the general pattern of most cinemas today. In my defence, I might add that I put on all sorts of different films as well.
We are all responsible for accepting a cultural pattern under which violence becomes acceptable, particularly to young people. Young people starting to go to the cinema and to look at television see these films of violence. Very often, good moral conclusions are drawn. The villain loses his life and the hero wins, but it is all part of the pattern of violence. Therefore, we need not be surprised that if young people are brought up against a background of violence they should seem to regard violence as less of an evil than an older generation did.
All our behaviour is a cultural pattern derived from our environment, and if we are brought up in an environment where killing is permitted and there is nothing wrong in killing and where violence is permitted, obviously a young person's introduction to violence must be that it is more or less acceptable, that it is a thing which grown-ups accept. As these young people mature and get on in years they realise that life outside the cinema and the television set is not like what is portrayed inside—that violence does not pay, that sensible, civilised people do not accept violence. But it seems to the young in their early beginning as if they did.
Therefore, I say to the hon. Member for Gravesend, and with modesty to the House, that we are all responsible for this, and this is one of the reasons why we should see to it that those who have had the opportunity of seeing violence portrayed as being acceptable and have not yet sufficiently wide experience to know that violence is not acceptable, namely, the immature who can be conveniently described as between the ages of 18 and 21, should be safeguarded and not be subject to the death penalty. I say that they can be "conveniently described" in this way, because there is no accurate description. No 10,000 people of 18 are exactly the same.
That is one reason. There is another reason that I want to put, and I am only putting those reasons which have not been put already forcibly and well by many of my hon. Friends and one or two hon. Members opposite. I do not want to repeat what has been said already in the debate, but another reason which seems to me very impor

tant is that none of us can imagine our own death. It is quite impossible for the human mind to contemplate the extinction of the personality which is doing the contemplating. We can contemplate what may happen tomorrow. We can contemplate coming here tomorrow at the appropriate time, continuing the debate and taking part in Divisions, but we cannot contemplate our extinction. It is even less possible for a young person to contemplate his extinction. A young person, a person between 18 and 21, is utterly incapable of making the deep, difficult reckoning that makes any approach to such a contemplation. It is impossible for the mature. It is infinitely more impossible for the immature.
It is nonsense to suggest that an immature person between 18 and 21 is capable of calculating in the sense of saying, "I realise what I am doing. It is an evil thing. I will be wiped out. I will cease to exist. I know what that means. I can understand it. I can fully comprehend it". It is just incomprehensible to a person of that age. Therefore, it is right that a person of that age should not be subject to the death penalty.
This was brought home to me very strongly indeed by a letter one of my hon. Friends showed me. It was from a man in the death cell who had written to his Member of Parliament making a complaint about a trivial matter of procedure in the prison. The man was about to die. He knew that he was about to die. That seemed to him to be of such little importance that he was not even writing to his M. P. about it. In the few days of life which remained to him he thought it appropriate to draw attention to a tiny, footling matter of procedure. We all get footling matters to deal with. The man felt the injustice of that. He could understand the injustice of that, but he could not understand the discontinuance of his own personality. We are incapable of understanding that. He could not, and he was a mature man. A fortiori a boy of 18 cannot.
I appeal to the hon. Member for Gravesend and to all those who have been good enough to listen to me. Let us at all events attempt to raise our horizons just an inch or two and help


forward a society in which violence is not approved by State violence and in which young persons are undisturbed as young persons and protected from the death penalty.

11.45 p.m.

Mr. Deedes: The hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond) has spoken very persuasively, and I have no doubt that he has persuaded my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend (Mr. Kirk). He would have persuaded me more, as would other hon. Gentlemen who have spoken on the Clause, had anything more been said on the subject of the alternative which hon. Gentlemen have in mind in putting forward the Clause. This was touched upon by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Hobson). It is an aspect which must be dwelt upon if the Clause is to be given serious thought.
The alternative which I have in mind is something which hon. Members opposite who support the Clause probably would not wish to contemplate. I have in mind a sentence of imprisonment of very great length as an alternative to the death penalty for the young who commit this particular category of murder. We are talking now of capital murder only, that is, murder for which they can be hanged.
The problem of the alternative is one of the most difficult things in the whole subject of capital punishment. It is most difficult in the age category which we are discussing in the Clause, and for more than one reason. One reason which will occur to all hon. Members is that any prolonged sentence of imprisonment for someone under 21 can have advanced against it many of the arguments which have been advanced tonight in favour of the Clause—for instance, immaturity of mind, and so on.
There is one point which arises out of this on which I would follow the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M Foot). He spoke of the very great responsibilities of the Home Secretary in respect of the death penalty. Does it occur to him how great the responsibilities of the Home Secretary would be in the particular respect of the Clause if it were put into effect? None of us knows what the length of the alternative might be. We do not now know what the length of the alternative is None of us knows

what life in prison amounts to, because it varies in each case, as it would here.
As I understand the law, in this category the decision to release a young person who had undergone sentence of imprisonment as the alternative to being hanged would lie with my right hon. Friend. He would decide, on the recommendation and advice given to him, when the release should be made. Much has been said tonight about lives at stake. There would be lives at stake—there might be lives at stake—in the decision that my right hon. Friend would be called upon to take because, although we know from the statistics and the evidence before the Royal Commission on Capital Punishment that the occasions on which a murder has been committed for the second time after a sentence of imprisonment can, I think, be numbered on the fingers of one hand, that would not, in my view, diminish the enormous responsibility imposed on the Home Secretary in weighing the recommendations for the release of a young person who had committed a murder—obviously, of the most heinous character, because that is the type of murder of which we are talking.
I believe that the difference, certainly between myself and those who have spoken in favour of the new Clause is that I would not be prepared lightly to take the risk to society, to innocent life, involved in the early release of a young person who might be suffering the alternative—

Mr. MacColl: I do not think that the hon. Member could have been in the House because I did, in fact, deal with the point he had raised earlier. What I ventured to point out was the very small numbers that are involved here. We have already got a 16-year-old murderer, with whom all these problems must arise. Since the Homicide Act was passed there had been, to October, 1960, only two of these young persons involved. Already, these problems are being faced in respect of the other, I think, four, two of whom have already been reprieved. It is a tiny problem although, in complexity, it may be a difficult one.

Mr. Deedes: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman if I was not present to hear his remarks. I have checked that we are dealing with a very small minority, but


we are also dealing with the possibility of what that small minority could do if undergoing the alternative.
I do not want to build up too big a hypothesis, but I think that what most hon. Members opposite would have in mind as an alternative would be a long but relatively modest sentence of imprisonment. If measured by what is now the average length of a life sentence, so-called, they would probably be justified in what they say. That is my principal reason for opposing this Clause.
I believe that it is imperative that young people today should be kept believing that murder is an awful crime, by whomsoever it is committed. The last thing I would like young people to believe would be that murder was an awful crime when committed by someone over 21—who, in cases of capital murder, would suffer the supreme penalty—but a less awful crime when committed by those between 18 and 21. It is that consideration, as well as the other argument I have advanced, that leads me to oppose the new Clause.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I beg to move,
That the debate be now adjourned.
I move this Motion in accordance with an understanding reached earlier. We have managed to have no fewer than 11 speeches during a debate of more or less two hours which, I think, has added to our fund of wisdom. May I make an appeal that we may come to a decision fairly early tomorrow so that we may get on with the later parts of the Bill? I would defer my speech till tomorrow, if that would suit right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Debate to be resumed Tomorrow.

ESTIMATES

Commander Sir John Maitland discharged from the Estimates Committee; Mr. John Jackson added.—[Mr. E. Wakefield.]

SELBY TOLL BRIDGE

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Colonel J. H. Harrison.]

11.50 p.m.

Mr. Paul Bryan: I am grateful for this long delayed chance to speak on behalf of my constituents about Selby Bridge. I do not pretend that my silence has left the bridge at all neglected in a parliamentary sense. When I was preparing this speech I went to the Library and asked the assistant to get me out any HANSARDS which dealt with the question of the bridge since 1945. When I went back in a couple of hours' time he had piled up on the table 36 volumes. This gives some idea of the extent to which my predecessor, Mr. George Odey, and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Barkston Ash (Sir L. Ropner), who has been the Parliamentary sentry guarding the other end of the bridge, have been looking after the interests of the people of Selby here in the House.
Tonight, I do not intend to go too deeply into the past, because the history of this affair was examined in great detail by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Barkston Ash in an Adjournment debate on 20th July. On that occasion the subject so run away with him that in the end only a minute was left to the Parliamentary Secretary to reply. So if the Parliamentary Secretary would like to use part of his time tonight to reply to what my hon. and gallant Friend said then, I should be very pleased, and I am sure that the people of Selby would appreciate it.
I see that this debate has attracted the interest of Members from well beyond the borders of Yorkshire. In fact, I see one Member who comes from one of the most far-flung fringes of our kingdom—Londonderry. The presence of these hon. Gentlemen, of course, adds weight to the argument which I shall put forward later that Selby Bridge is not a local problem only: it is a national problem.
For the benefit of these "visitors" I propose to start by explaining that the story of Selby Bridge begins in 1791, when an Act of Parliament was passed which granted the tolls of the bridge, of


this very rickety old bridge, tax free to the proprietors. It is this freedom from tax which is, oddly enough, the main cause of our present quandary. Over the last sixty years the value of this rough piece of woodwork—it is almost impossible to describe what it looks like except to say that it is of what one might call Emmet design—has been boosted for two different reasons. On the one side, there has been increased traffic which has, of course, increased the value of the tolls. On the other side, the increase in the scale of taxation has increased the extent to which the provisions of the Act allow the proprietors to avoid or at least to be not liable to tax. So this bridge has become a gold mine and a curse; a curse to all Yorkshiremen and a gold mine to the proprietors.
To show to what extent the value has risen, in 1892 a delegation of men from York went to have an interview with the Highways and Bridges Committee of the East Riding County Council. Their purpose was to get rid of this great problem of the bridge. I suppose that since that date there have been a hundred such committees and delegations formed for the same purpose. On that occasion, they were told that to buy out the toll rights of the bridge would cost £3,915. In 1911, the cost had risen to £40,000. What is the worth of the bridge today? Naturally, neither the Government nor the proprietors will name a figure, because that would be likely to prejudice any future deal. But I think that some figures which I can now give will enable us to make something between a valuation and a guess.
Last year, the biggest customer, the firm paying the biggest tolls in the area, paid no less than £10,000. Another firm paid almost £3,000. The traffic over the bridge is about 5,000 vehicles a day and the toll charge is 9d. per vehicle. I work that out as an income of about £70,000 a year. Apart from the 9d. on each vehicle there is also 9d. on each ton of weight, so that a heavy lorry pays a great deal more than 9d. We must subtract the upkeep of the bridge and also take into account the fact that big customers will get a reduced tariff. Taking all this into account, one can come to the conclusion that the net income of the bridge, which is tax free, must be between £70,000 and £100,000 a year.

The value of an investment bringing in a tax free return of that size cannot possibly be less than £1 million.
Over the past years hon. Members representing this area have argued in terms of local inconvenience, in terms of the infuriating prospect for their constituents of having to queue up to pay 9d. every time they go across the bridge into Selby to shop or to their daily work. Great as has been the inconvenience, it is not surprising, I suppose, that succeeding Ministers of Transport have thought that £1 million, or whatever is the figure, is a very large sum of public money to pay to get rid of a local nuisance. So, in 1938, they came to a conclusion which was to solve the problem. It was decided to build a by-pass round Selby with the idea of creating a freer flow of traffic and, also, that a proportion of traffic would be diverted from the toll bridge and thus reduce the value of the tolls and make the bridge buyable. That is the present position.
On 7th August, 1959, the Minister of Transport wrote to the clerk of the East Riding County Council:
The volume of through traffic using the bridge does not justify the diversion for the immediate construction of a by-pass of trunk road funds which are more urgently required for the current major road programme.
So we have the extraordinary position in which the by-pass cannot be built because the amount of traffic is too small to warrant its construction and the toll bridge cannot be bought because the traffic is too big and, therefore, the tolls too high, making the bridge too expensive to be bought.
To expunge this paradox, if that is what one does with paradoxes, I would put this key question to the Parliamentary Secretary, because it is the question on which all good judgment most surely depend: what is the natural traffic that would go across Selby Bridge? We know what the actual traffic is—as I have said, it is 5,000 vehicles per day—but that is the traffic flowing across the bridge against the strong tide of a 9d. toll. If the 9d. toll was not there, I believe that it would release such a pent-up flood of traffic that the narrow streets of Selby would be completely swamped with cars and lorries. Therefore, I believe that the prospect of taking no action except taking the tolls off is impossible for that very practical reason.
The only hope of a bridge that I can see lies in persuading the Minister that this is not just a local problem, but a national problem. I think that this can best be shown by the fact that Selby is the focal point of six main roads or, at any rate, six important routes of which four are trunk roads. Those roads are obstructed by this quite artificial obstruction of the river crossing. This artificial obstruction is the cause or partial cause of some of the most famous traffic jams in Yorkshire.
Many of the cars and lorries that crowd through the streets of York and form part of the queues in Malton and over Boothferry Bridge and the little swing bridge in Thorne should have crossed the river at Selby Bridge; but traffic avoids that bridge like the plague. One finds that a driver setting off from Hull to Leeds will go via York, and yet he should be crossing the bridge at Selby.
Hull is the third biggest port in England. Out of it comes a enormous flood of traffic, and very heavy traffic, too, and this traffic is squeezed in great congestion across the river at York and also across the Boothferry Bridge, whilst too small a proportion goes across at Selby. The roads south and west of Selby are fairly clear, whereas the roads going through York and across Boothferry are crowded.
To sum up on that, I have here a report from the surveyor to the East Riding County Council. He has been working for the council for about thirty years, and so has great experience of this area. He says that
the removal of this deterrent by means of a by-pass and a free bridge would open the floodgates to traffic and, in my view, effect a more widespread redistribution of traffic than any other comparable scheme in the North of England.
Let me now examine the question of what is the natural traffic crossing the bridge. I think that we can make an estimate. As a start, it is estimated—possibly the Parliamentary Secretary will agree here—that 60 per cent. of the present toll bridge traffic can be diverted—in other words, 60 per cent. of 5,000, which would mean 3,000 vehicles—would use a new by-pass bridge, presuming that there would also be a link by-passing Barlby and Riccall as wall.
In addition to that, the surveyor upon whose experience I again draw says this:
I am convinced that the new traffic which would be attracted to a Selby by-pass would be in the region of 9,000 vehicles per day, which, added to the 3,000, gives a figure of 12,000 vehicles.
If we are talking about a figure of 12,000 vehicles, that certainly would justify the building of a by-pass bridge, and if by chance and by magic the Parliamentary Secretary were able to announce such a decision this very night, during the period before the opening of a bridge that figure would certainly have increased to 18,000, which is just about the volume of traffic which goes down the M.1 motorway today.
The surveyor says, finally:
Traffic in the foreseeable future might well be 20,000–24,000 vehicles per day, which I suggest should be the design standard for such a road.
That is the argument for the case, which I should be glad if the Parliamentary Secretary would answer.
Before I sit down, I want to mention one local disagreement about which I also wish to express an opinion. The Dement Rural District Council, which is on the Howden division side of the river, is in favour of the tolls of the bridge being raised before any start is made on a bypass. The Selby Council would like the by-pass first and the raising of the tolls after. If one looks into the reasons for these attitudes, one finds that they are understandable. The Derwent Council represents people who use the bridge to go to work and suffer from the tolls, while the people of Selby would have their roads cluttered up with more traffic.
All these factors are irrelevant, however. The two things must be done together. If the tolls were raised first, the town would be flooded with traffic. The by-pass will have to be opened at practically the same time. When that happens, who will pay for the raising of the tolls on Selby Toll Bridge? At the moment, the Government would pay, because the bridge is part of the trunk road, but the by-pass would become the trunk road, and the toll bridge would become a secondary road. Would that mean that the East Riding County Council would have to pay for the raising of the tolls? That is an important


point, because, however much the bypass would take away traffic from the bridge there would still be a tidy sum for the County Council to pay.
This problem has caused immense irritation in our area over the years, and for that reason there is, naturally, talk that the Government have not given enough thought to it, or, as some say, no thought at all. I am not of that school, because I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Sir R. Nugent), when he was Joint Parliamentary Secretary, made a painstaking study of the problem, and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary has also taken a great interest in it. But I would like tonight an assurance from him that the Minister is aware that the building of a by-pass and the raising of the tolls would not only bring long awaited and long merited comfort to the people of Barmby and Selby, but also that it would bring real help to the lorry drivers and motorists not only all over Yorkshire, but far beyond the county.

12.9 a.m.

Colonel Sir Leonard Ropner: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Howden (Mr. Bryan) on the eloquence of his plea and also on the moderation with which he has dealt with a matter which has been a quite disgraceful record on the part of the Ministry of Transport for many years. Some months ago I occupied a great deal of time during an Adjournment debate on this matter, and will now gladly give way to my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary who will, I hope, deal with some of the points that I raised on that occasion.

12.10 a.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. John Hay): As my hon. Friend the Member for Howden (Mr. Bryan) said, this is a matter which has exercised the House on a number of occasions in the past. This is the second Adjournment debate, as has been said, in which it has been raised within the last year. It is true that we had quite a substantial attendance in the House when my hon. Friend was speaking. We had hon. Members here from Cumberland, Norfolk, Suffolk, Ulster, and various other parts of the country, all of whom have, unfor-

tunately, left the Chamber. I rather got the impression that this attendance, so widespread throughout the country, was due not perhaps so much to the national importance of Selby Toll Bridge, but because my hon. Friend was breaking, in an admirable way, a self-imposed silence of some considerable time.
I do not want to weary the House with a long recital of the history of this matter over the past thirty or forty years. My hon. Friend said that when he first decided to raise the subject on the Adjournment and asked in the Library for information about the occasions when it had been raised before no less than 36 volumes of HANSARD were provided for him. I had a somewhat similar experience. I asked the officials of my right hon. Friend's Department to provide me with the various files and documents relating to Selby Toll Bridge and bring them to the House tonight. They demurred because they said that our Department files on the subject would fill a large van and that Treasury approval for the expenditure of hiring such a vehicle to bring the documents here might not easily be obtained.
I think that it might be helpful if I recapitulate as briefly as I can the basic facts about Selby Toll Bridge, because, in essence, this is a simple matter. As my hon. Friend said, the bridge carries the East-West trunk road A.63, and the North-South trunk road A.19 over the River Ouse. It also forms the only link between the two parts of the town of Selby, so it is natural that the levying of tolls is a matter of great local interest.
The bridge is a swing bridge, made of wood. It was built in 1792 under powers given by Parliament in the Selby Bridge Act of 1791, and it is at present owned by a company of proprietors. For some reason the Act of 1791 exempts the toll revenues from tax. I cannot comment on the point which my hon. Friend raised on the subject of tax, because this is not one for me or for my right hon. Friend, but should be raised with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if at all.
Before the war, in 1936 to be precise, the East-West road A.63 became a trunk road. A public inquiry was held in 1937 and following that a route for an East-West by-pass running south of Selby was established by an Order made


in 1938, which is still effective. In 1946, the North-South route A.19 and A.1041 also became a trunk road and it became necessary to consider a complementary North-South by-pass of Selby and the neighbouring townships of Riccall and Barlby. So far, no Order has been made to establish this North-South route. That was the pre-war situation.
After the war, economic restrictions made it impossible to contemplate constructing a by-pass for some considerable time, so the Ministry of Transport examined the possibility of acquiring the existing bridge and the toll rights in it and thereafter to construct a new bridge on approximately the same site.
I am advised that at that time there seemed to be some reasonable prospect that this could be done at something like a reasonable cost when economic conditions became easier, and in 1955 my right hon. Friend who is now Minister of Pensions and National Insurance included the construction of a new bridge at Selby in his programme of major trunk road schemes, but—and I must emphasise this—he laid down a very important proviso that this was subject to a satisfactory settlement being reached on the question of tolls.
I must make it clear at this point that successive Ministers of Transport have felt that it would be quite wrong to devote to the buying out of private toll rights large sums which could be better used for urgently needed improvements on trunk roads elsewhere. Road-works in this country cost a very large sum of money.
They are intrinsically very expensive. The amount of money we have for the road programme, although large by any standards, is something we must watch and guard very carefully and I am afraid that decision taken by successive Ministers of Transport cannot be departed from. It is something which, in some ways, I personally regret because, like my hon. Friend the Member for Howden and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Barkston Ash (Sir L. Ropner), I have a toll bridge in part of my constituency and I would dearly like to see the toll on that bridge abolished. I often find myself in some embarrassment with my constituents as a result of the position which I now hold.
Negotiations to work out the amount of money to be paid for the acquisition of the tolls continued with the owners of the bridge until January, 1959. It was then announced by my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Sir R. Nugent), that the negotiations had shown that the probable cost of acquiring the tolls would greatly exceed the amount which the Government felt the scheme for rebuilding the existing bridge would justify. Accordingly, he said that we were not prepared to proceed with that proposal. He went on to explain, however, that we intended to include the scheme for a by-pass as a long-term project in its due place in its order of priorities in the road programme, but that he was unable to say exactly when that would be.
That, in January, 1959, was the moment of decision. Up to that time it had been on the cards that the tolls might be acquired and the bridge freed. From that moment, however, it was made clear that the cost of acquisition would be so great that it would be quite out of proportion to the importance of the project as a whole and that a much better solution long-term would be the provision of the by-pass. As I have said, the announcement was then made that we had abandoned the idea of acquiring the tolls and rebuilding the bridge on its existing site in favour of establishing the by-pass as and when money was available in the proper order of priorities to build it.
I am sorry, but that is still the position. The cost of a satisfactory by-pass to cater for the North-South as well as East-West traffic is likely to be about £2 million, but the volume of long-distance trunk road traffic, as distinct from local traffic, passing over the bridge is not sufficient to justify us in diverting immediately from our not unlimited funds such a large sum for this scheme for it is, of course, the trunk road traffic with which we are concerned as this is a toll bridge on a trunk road. It serves, it is true, a great deal of local traffic, but the total volume of trunk road through traffic is comparatively small.
My hon. Friend the Member for Howden asked what would be the natural amount of traffic which would use Selby Bridge if it were free of toll and which, at the moment, does not


use it. That really is a question of what might be the increased traffic volume which would justify a high priority for a by-pass. We took a traffic census last October of the East-West traffic. Similar figures for the North-South traffic are not available. In any event, the reconstruction of A.1 and the building of the London-Yorkshire motorway, which are both going ahead, would cast some doubt on the validity of any figures we might have obtained last October of the North-South traffic.
Dealing with the East-West traffic we discovered, somewhat to our surprise, that only 760 vehicles a day which could have gone through Selby passed through Rawcliffe and over Boothferry Bridge, which is the alternative toll-free crossing. I think that my hon. Friend would agree that those figures are hardly a sufficient volume of traffic East-West to give the by-pass a very much higher place in the queue of meritorious schemes we have for the country.
At present, we are considering the results of the traffic census in connection with the possibility of using the

abandoned Barnsley-Hull railway line as a trunk road. The surveyors of the East and West Riding County Councils are preparing a report for us on this. One of the factors which we have very much in mind is the possible effects of such a project on the design and programming of the Selby by-pass, but I cannot say much about that tonight except to mention it. I would only add that we shall be announcing our decision on this matter very shortly.
Finally, I should like to repeat that we have very much in mind the hindrance to traffic and particularly to the trunk road traffic of the Selby Toll Bridge. We shall include the by-pass in our programme in its due place in the order of national priorities.

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Tuesday evening and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at twenty-one minutes past Twelve o'clock.